Samuel Chandler
Theologian & bookseller
Jage
First cortions
:
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
GENERAL LIBRARY
GALEN C. HARTMAN
LIBRARY FUND
i
..
Hirls in our
First editions
James Thomson
REFLECTIONS
ΟΝ ΤΗΕ
CONDUCT
OF THE
Modern DEISTS,
In their late Writings againſt Chriſtianity :
Occafioned Chiefly
By Two BOOKS, Entitled,
A Difcourfe of the GROUNDS and
REASONS, &C.
AND
The Scheme of LITERAL PROPHE-
CY confidered.
With a Preface containing fome Remarks on Dr.
Rogers's Preface to his Eight Sermons.
Nec vero id enim diligenter intelligi volo) fuperftitione
tollenda religio tollitur. Effe praeftantem ali-
quam, aeternamque naturam, & eam fufpiciendam, ad-
mirandamque bominum generi, pulcritudo mundi, ordo-
que rerum coeleftium cogit confiteri.
Cicer. de Divinat. 1. 2.
By SAMUEL CHANDLER,
LONDON:
Printed for JOHN CHANDLER at the Cross-
Keys in the Poultrey, 1727.
( Price
BT
1100
143
T42-190306
(iii)
THE
PREFACE.
观
​HEN the following reflections
W
were fent to the prefs, it was
W
very far from my thoughts, to
trouble the world with any fort
of preface; thoſe reflections being only
defigned as a preface to a more particular
confideration of the Literal Scheme, which
I intend as foon as I have convenient op-
portunity and leifure. But as the Reverend
Dr. Rogers, Canon Reſidentiary of Wells,
and Chaplain to his ROYAL HIGHNESS,
hath published eight fermons concerning
the Neceffity of Divine Revelation, and,
in his preface to thofe fermons, hath in-
finuated, that fome of the ingenious per-
fons, in whose words the Literal Sche-
matist takes upon him to rebuke the Bishop,
1
a
have
(iv)
have either, to make room for fome pro-
ject of their own, or in favour to fome
other mens, gone too far into the dif
banding ſcheme, and making religion a
perfonal matter, Pref. p. 61. I could
not forbear confidering his fcheme, which
is to blend religion and politicks together,
or to make religion not a perfonal, but
ftate matter.
Whether the perfons, whofe names the
Literal Schematist makes use of, be fo
very ingenious or not, is little to the pur-
pofe; and, I am perfuaded, care very
lit-
tle, one of them at least, whether the
Canon thinks them ingenious or other-
wife: But he doth think that he is con-
cerned to wipe off the unjust reflections
of others upon himself, and fcorns to
make any unfriendly reprefentations, or
charge others with felfish views, or to
write in favour of a party, or to usher in
his difcourfes in vindication of a religion
that abhors perfecution, with a tedious
preface that strongly favours of the ſpirit
of it.
I have not the honour of being acquaint-
ed with this learned Doctor, tho I am
acquainted with the nature of his Viſible
and Inviſible Churches, and with one fet
of
!
(v)
of his methods to fupport Christianity.
do alfo pretend to know my own projects,
and to affure him that I am very far from
entring into his, which I am perfuaded are
not only contrary to, but inconſiſtent with
the intereft of truth, and the very being of
real Christianity.
I have honestly reviewed my own no-
tions of liberty, according to the Doctor's
order, and do declare to the world, that I
enter into every latitude of this kind, that
is confiftent with the peace, order and
maintenance of focieties; and that I do
not apprehend the profeffion of any par-
ticular religion, as fuch, as it stands
contradiftinguished from the law of na-
ture, is in the nature of things neceffary
to the fafety, and good order of govern-
ment, which may be supported by a due
regard to the practice of moral duties, and
by a proper care in the civil magiftrate to
enforce the obfervation of them, in all
who are fubject to their authority and go-
vernment; and which will be fufficiently
Supported by fuch a regard to moral duties,
notwithstanding the greatest diversity of
opinions in other things, even tho' the
community should confift of fome Deiſts,
Some Mahometans, and others Chriſtians.
a 2
If
( vi )
If the particular opinions of fome be na
real prejudice to others, and if the publi-
cation of fuch fentiments doth not deprive
others of the liberty of judging for them-
Jelves, nor hurt them in any valuable in-
tereft of life; why should they not think
for themselves, and publish what they ap-
prehend to be true, without any cenfure of
the civil magiftrate, whofe proper business
it is to preferve all good fubjects in their
respective privileges, against the attacks
of the vicious part of mankind on the one
hand, and the worfe attempts of bigotted
and imperious churchmen of every kind on
the other?
If we confider the hiftories of past times,
we shall find, that the disturbances that
have been raised in any nations upon reli-
gious accounts, have not proceeded origi-
nally from the people, but been raiſed, fo-
mented, and carried on to mutual hatreds
and flaughters, by another set of men,
who, under the pretence of religion and
the church, have not fcrupled to make uſe
of the most infamous methods, to fatisfy
their ambition, avarice, and vanity.
To go no farther for a proof of this,
than the days of what the Doctor calls
the times of the great rebellion, he knows,
Of
( vii )
or he ought to know, that the pride and
cruel perfecutions that were fet on foot by
the clergy, were one great spring of the
calamities which were brought on the na-
tion, and which ended at last in the death
of that unfortunate Prince CHARLES the
First, whofe prevailing fault was, being
govern'd by the counfels of a Popith
QUEEN, and following the advice of the
reverend projectors of thofe times, who
fcandalously preached up a difpenfing power
in the crown; and carried the power of
the priesthood to fuch an enormous height,
as brought a just punishment upon fome of
the principal actors in that affair: a power
that every good Chriftian trembles at the
thoughts of, and that I hope will never be
fuffered again in thefe as yet free and pro-
teftant kingdoms.
It must be confeffed and lamented, that
there are and have been wicked men,
and turbulent fpirits, whofe lufts and paf-
fions would not be reftrained within the
rules of the Chriftian religion, whofe con-
ftant method it hath been to flatter their
princes into a love of perfecution; and it
hath been the weakneſs of ſome princes to
Swallow the bait, and follow the advices
of thefe fpiritual difpenfers, not only of
Chriftian
I
(viii)
'Chriftian food, but of medicines and an-
tidotes as well as meat; and 'tis true,
that their medicines have been generally
pretty fevere, and the wretched patient
hath been forced to fubmit to caufticks,
phlebotomies, amputations, and other harsh
methods of cure, and indeed ſo often died
under them, as would tempt an indiffe-
rent perſon to think, that their maxim
was, not to cure, but to kill.
Enfe recidendum ne pars fincera trahatur.
The Doctor must therefore excufe me
from fubmitting to his advice, till ĺknow
whether he will order me meat or medi-
cine; if medicine, of what fort, and for
what distemper; and whether it will fuit
my conftitution, which at prefent is pretty
tender, and will not bear to be over-
worked by too large a dofe of phyfick. An-
tidotes are very good in their kind, but,
when prefcribed by an injudicious hand,
may prove themselves as bad as poiſon.
The Canon's fpiritual antidotes feem to me
more especially dangerous, because of the
compoſition of them; not being made up
wholly of reafon, argument, and good
bumour; but of a small portion of thefe,
added
(ix)
added to a quantum fufficit of reaſonable
Severities and penal restraints; and for
a liberty to apply thefe to fuch patients as
may fall in his way, he courts the affif-
tance of the fecular power, an affiftance
that, I hope, will never be granted him.
His facred Majesty's care of his fub-
jects, his benevolence to mankind, his ab-
horrence of perfecution, his protection of
every one here in their civil and religious
liberties, and his generous interceffion in
behalf of others, that were in danger of
perfecution from the bigottry and zeal of
Some pretended ſtewards and difpenfers,
are the glories of his reign, and add the
nobleft luftre to his crown. 'Tis this hath
gained him the love of his ſubjects at
home, and made the happy state of his
kingdoms to be envied by all the nations
around us; and the prospect we have,
thro' the good providence of God, that
his MAJESTY's virtues will be as heredi-
tary as his crown, takes away all our fuf-
picions and fears of any future perfecu-
tion, and caufes us to rejoice in the hopes
his Royal Highneſs's known equity, juſtice,
goodness, and love to mankind give us, that
this bleffing, this invaluable bleſſing of
LIBERTY, upon which the honour and fuc-
cefs
1
( x )
tess of Christianity, the flourishing of
trade, the riches of the nation, the dig-
nity of the crown, and indeed every thing
that is dear and valuable to us as men
and Chriftians doth depend, will be far-
ther continued and confirmed to us and
our pofterity.
It gives me, I confess, but a mean opi-
nion of the minifters of any church, let
them be of the Epifcopal or Presbyterian,
or any perfuafions for all parties in this
cafe are alike to me, when I fee them tam-
pering and meddling with their princes
and governours, in order to bring them in
to love with the doctrines of violence and
perfecution. It looks like a fervile courting
them for that power which they never
knew how to manage, but have ever abu-
fed as often as they have been entruſted
with it, and which hath ever proved fa-
tal to those unhappy princes in England,
who have yielded to their perfuafion and
flatteries, as we may learn from the hifto-
ries of 41 and 88. And tho' to compass
their defign, they may talk of the glory of
God, the good of the Church, the danger
and confufion produced by licentious no-
tions, and the bad effects they must have
on morality, civil peace, and the fecurity
and
(xi)
and influence of government it felf, yet
I can never be brought to believe, that
thefe are the things they have uppermost
at heart, but fomething else that is dearer
to them than religion, viz. the grandeur,
riches, and power of the clergy. Pub-
lick wiſdom may furely be permitted,
without the imputation of unreaſonable
ſeverity, to reſtrain fuch projectors from
ſcattering arrows, firebrands and death
amongſt us; fince for one diforder pro-
duced by the liberty of private judgment
and the prefs, ten thousand have been
produced by the men, who either diſtruſt-
ing the cauſe, or their abilities to defend
Chriſtianity, by reafon and argument, have
made use of the wretched methods of car-
nal weapons of warfare and defence.
What if the grounds of our religion
are openly attacked, what damage is it to
us that are believers? Do not the objec-
tions that are made against it give oc-
cafion to examine them more narrowly,
and to folve them more accurately? Hath
it not produced many excellent defences,
and in particular the eight fermons of the
learned Canon refidentiary of Wells,
with the honour of a dedication to his
Royal Highneſs, and a preface in favour
b
of
(xii)
of church power and authority? Doth
it not give occafion to the appointed
ftewards of the church, to difpenfe new
food to ordinary Chriftians, to provide
wholfom medicines as well as meat, and
fupply them with antidotes equal to
their danger? I am of the Doctor's opinion,
that our caufe, as Chriftians, is the cause
of God, against which the gates of hell
ſhall never prevail; but I cannot think
there is any need of the political maxims
of that wildom which is from beneath
to fupport and protect this caufe of hea-
ven; nor imagine how thofe hellish arts,
that were once made use of to fuppress
and deftroy it, can now be employed with
any advantage to defend and propagate
it. And tha, from my very foul, I blefs
God for the influence of every great ex-
ample in promoting it; yet it will be my
hearty prayer, that it may never be pro-
moted by fuch medicines and antidotes,
as will deftroy the patient instead of cu-
ring his distemper. I believe his Royal
Highness wishes fuccefs to every hand,
honourably engaged in the fervice of Chri-
Stianity; but I will never believe, that
any of the branches of the illuftrious
houfe of HANOVER, whom providence
feems
(xiii)
Jeems to have raifed up to be the glorious
affertors of the liberties of mankind, and
the Support of the protestant religion,
founded wholly on, and to be defended on-
ly by preferving the rights of confcience
and private judgment, will ever enter
into the methods of perfecution, or ſuffer
any fet of clergy what foever to perfecute in
their name and by their authority ; what-
ever methods they may make use of
to infinuate into them their principles, or
court their favour. The great Prince
that now fits upon the throne fees thro
the defigns of theſe enterprising projeɛ-
tors; hath delivered us, and I trust in God
will ſtill continue to deliver us; and I
doubt not will apply effectual remedies,
agreeable to his wifdom, to reſcue him-
felf, and his Royal Highneſs from the
terrible proſpect of being governed by a ſet
of men, who tho' they pretend to religion,
publickly espouse principles contrary to, and
fubverfive of it. And 'tis the wish of
every good fubject and Christian, that
the dew of divine benediction (to uſe
the Doctor's fimile) may deſcend on his
Royal Highneſs's Perfon and Family;
that the wiſdom of God may direct, his
power preſerve, and his holy spirit (not
b 2
the
( xiv)
འ
the graces of his holy fpirit which I did
not imagine to have been proper agents)
may adorn him with every good and
perfect gift; and particularly with that
increafing benevolence to all mankind,
which will make his future fubjects
happy, and his own reign fafe and glo-
rious.
I am forry to find this reverend Doc-
tor takes upon him to be an advocate for
the Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry;
I mean, that his Lordship hath a per-
fon of the Doctor's principles, that ſhould
prefume to engage in defence of that
learned and truly valuable vindication of
Chriſtianity; and especially to vindicate
a paſſage that hath been thought moſt
liable to exception. I own as to my felf,
that in the view I take it, I cannot
justify it, tho, upon proper conviction, I
Shall not only own, but retract my mif-
take, and do his Lordship all the justice
he can expect from me; having, if I
know my self, no paffion more prevalent
than that of doing justice to every man ;
eſpecially my fuperiors, as to learning, fta-
tion and usefulness in life. But what
hath this reverend Canon Reſidentiary
to do, to explain his Lordship's meaning
without
3
( xv)
Re-
without his leave, and to affure us that
his Lordship might reasonably call for the
aid of the civil Magiftrate in the con-
troverfy between him and the Deifts?
If he can reaſonably do it, it must be
upon the Doctor's principle, which is a
very unreaſonable one, viz. that religion
is incorporated into our civil conftitu-
tion, and become a legal part of our
properties; as much fecured to us by the
oaths of our Princes, and the authority
and fanctions of our laws, as our lives
or fortunes. This is ſuch ſtrange fort
of Divinity as I should never have ex-
pected from a Chriftian writer.
ligion is incorporated into our civil
conftitution, i. e. the laws of England
have made religion an entire civil mat-
ter, and Chriftianity is fupported, like
the Revolution, and the happy Settle-
ment confequent to it, by an act of Par-
liament. The Deifts are really in the
wrong to oppofe fuch strong arguments
as thefe, and may upon this fettlement
be very easily refuted. For if religion be
a legal part of our properties, and as much
fecured to us by our laws as our lives and
fortunes, our tenure is certainly good ; and
if the Deifts would do any thing to the
purpose,
( xvi)
purpoſe, they must at least remove the caufe
from the court of reafon, and carry it in-
to Weſtminſter Hall, to the Common
Pleas, or the Court of King's Bench. A
jury of twelve fubftantial freeholders, un-
der the Doctor's direction, would, I doubt
not, make an excellent decifion in the cafe,
and condemn the Deifts to pay costs of fuit.
But let it be ſo, that religion is incor-
porated into our civil conftitution, I would
ask this worthy Doctor, what fort of
religion? I doubt not but he'll tell me
the Chriftian. But this answer will not
Satisfy, becauſe Chriftianity in England
is Prelacy, and in Scotland Presbytery.
Or if he means the Engliſh Christianity,
I ſhould be glad to know, whether it be
of the Geneva, or Dutch kind, that of
Calvin or Arminius. I humbly conceive
that it is the former kind to which our
acts of Parliament refer, and have in-
corporated into our civil conftitution, and
made as legal a part of the Doctor's pro-
perty as his life and fortune, as he
fee in the church charter, the 39 articles
of religion. If it be fo, I am very ap-
prehenfive, that the Doctor, or fome of
his friends, have broken through this in-
sorporated blended conftitution, and have,
may
by
( xvii)
by teaching and preaching Arminianiſm,
forfeited their Christianity as established by
act of Parliament; and that therefore they
are on the fame foot with other diffenters,
who owe their religious liberties to the
favour of the government, and an act of
toleration; and that they must themselves
be gone fome lengths into the disbanding
fcheme, fince they have forfaken the reli-
gion of the Parliament, contrary to their
folemn fubfcriptions.
If the Doctor means, by the incorpo-
ration of religion into the civil fociety,
that their livings and preferments are ſe-
cured them by act of Parliament, and
that the facrament of the Lord's Supper
is made a teft and qualification for places
of profit and trust, in the state; and that
there are fome fine appendages to reli-
gion, which by act of Parliament are
incorporated into religion, and too often
much more valued than the very reli-
gion it felf they are blended with, here
I will not dispute with him; but leave
him to vindicate the honour of an eſta-
blishment, that hath thus perverted the
most facred rite of the Christian religi-
on into a political engine of ſtate, and
ordained that very inftitution, which
Was
( xviii)
was appointed to be the test of the fub*
jection of our hearts and confciences to
the Redeemer, to be a qualification for a
justice of the peace, or a common excife-
man. Excellent motive to remember the
death of Chrift, when a good yearly salary
is the fure benefit and confequence of it!
Pudet hæc opprobria vobis.-
This I am fure can be vindicated upon no
other Scheme but our Prefacer's, that re-
ligion is not religion, but politicks.
Or if he means by the incorporation of
religion into the civil conftitution, that
the civil government is defigned for the
prefervation of every good and peace-
able fubject in his liberty and property,
whatever be his particular religious fen-
timents, here I will agree with him, that
So far religion is, or ought to be incorpo-
rated with the civil conftitution; and am
firmly aſſured, that his Majeſty's royal
wifdom and juftice will not permit, nor
his counſellors advife, the fubverfion of
that foundation. But I will not fufpect
the Doctor is gone fo far into the dif
banding ſcheme, and to be fo deftitute of
zeal for the church and a publick con-
Science,
<
{
( xix )
fcience, as to make religion a perfonal
matter, and to allow that every man hath
a right to judge and believe for himſelf,
and to be protected in that right. No,
good man, he hath affured us of the con-
trary, and plainly tells us, Pref. p. 53.
that in queſtions, where a perſon muſt in
the event be determined by fome autho-
rity or other, he may reaſonably prefer
the authority appointed by publick wif
dom, and may juftly be required to do
fo; i.e. he may reasonably prefer the au-
thority of Dr. Rogers, with whom the
authority is partly lodg'd by publick wif
dom, and may justly be required fo to do.
But pray, Sir, what are the things
that must in the event be determined by
Some authority or other? Is it Chrifti-
anity in general? I hope in God, not fo.
Or is it popish Chriftianity? Here you
have publick authority against you. Or
is it reformed Calvinistick Chriſtianity?
Here you have publick authority for you.
But why then do the Clergy of the Church
of England fo generally contradict this pub-
lick authority in their fermons and wri-
tings, and preach up the Arminian doc-
trines, that are condemned by publick au-
thority? And doth not this oppofition to
C
pablick
( xx )
Publick authority manifeftly tend to intro-
duce the utmost confuſion civil and reli-
gious? And ſhould not fuch turbulent per-
fons be required to prefer and ſubmit to the
authority appointed by publick wisdom?
And further, I should be glad to be
informed what this publick_wisdom is,
and in whom 'tis lodged. Is it in the
Convocation, or the Parliament? or in
both together? In the bleſſed times of
Mary the First, the publick wifdom was
evidently against every scheme of prote-
ftantifm, and appointed the wholfome
method of burning men, that dared to con-
tradict it. In Charles the Firſt's time,
the publick wifdom ordained an univerfal
conformity, and fined and cut off the ears
of fuch as would not fubmit to it. In
Óliver's time, the publick wisdom was a
little altered, and required the aboliſhing
of Prelacy and Common Prayer. In
Charles the Second's time, the old pub-
lick wiſdom revived, and by methods of
fequeftrations, fines, imprisonments, and
five-mile acts, reafonably required a due
fubmiffion. In King James's, the publick
wifdom took away the charters of corpo-
rations, altered or acted contrary to Col-
lege ftatutes, imprisoned the Bishops, and,
what
( xxi )
what is the worst of all, difpenfed with the
penal laws, and ordered a general tolera-
tion. In King William's reign the publick
wiſdom by act of Parliament established a
toleration. In Queen Anne's, of glorious
memory, the publick wifdom ordained the
building of churches, damned occafi
onal conformity, and enacted the Schifm
Bill. In King George's reign it allowed
occafional conformity again, repeal'd the
Schifm Bill, and makes every man eafy in
his property and confcience. In Scotland
the publick wifdom is quite different, and
establishes the right of presbytery, the
powers of Kirk Seffions, and the ftool of
repentance. In France, the publick wif
dom is for dragooning; in Poland, for
taking away churches, and cutting throats;
and in Portugal, Spain, and Italy, for the
holy office of the inquifition. Now fince
the publick wisdom is fo different in dif-
ferent countries, and hath fo often differed
from itfelf in England, this publickly wife
Doctor would do well to let us know which
he approves of beft, and which he would re-
commend to the government for the future
direction of his Majesty's liege fubjects.
And as he infifts on it, that they may
be justly required to fubmit to this publick
€ 2
wisdom,
་
( xxii)
wifdom, I would also humbly request to
be informed what methods of requirement
he would have made use of; the I hope
this Gentleman will never have the di-
rection of his Majeſty's confcience, nor
the honour of being called in to affift at the
Council-board. If he means we should
be required by reafon and argument, we
have had enough of this, to require us to
Submit to the publick wifdom. If he
means we ſhould be required by the pillory,
whipping poft, or gallows; I ſhould be
glad if the Doctor was made to fubmit
first to thefe methods of perfuafion himself,
that we might learn from him both their
juſtice and influence ; and that he might de-
clare upon experience, how fit they are to
convince a private confcience, and reduce it
to the fize and standard of the publick one.
The truth is, the Doctor's fcheme will
fuit every fort and kind of religion what-
foever. For if it be expedient that there
Should be a publick wifdom or confcience in
England, 'tis altogether as fit that there
fhould be one in Scotland, France, and
Italy. And if men are to be required to
Submit to fuch a publick confcience any
where, they may, and ought to be required
to do it every where, unless the Doctor
will
( xxiii)
will modeftly affert, that the publick con-
Science or wisdom of the English Convo-
cation and Parliament in matters of reli-
gion is infallible. And if this way of
reasoning be just, I would ask what right
our bleffed Saviour had to preach against
the publick wiſdom of the Jewish Church?
Or how the Doctor will be able to answer
that plain question, Have any of the ru-
lers, or of the Pharifees believed on him?
John vii. 48. Or what right had the
Apostles and first preachers of Christianity
to propagate the religion of the gospel
against the publick wisdom of the Roman
commonwealth or the Athanafians to
preach against the publick wiſdom of the
Arians, when Arianifm was established
both by the Spiritual and civil power? or
our Reformers against the publick wifdom
of the Popish Church? or the friends to
the old Church of England against the
publick wifdom of the Rump and Oliver,
when Presbyterianifm or Independency be-
came established by law? Surely our Chri-
ftian and reformed Martyrs and Confeffors
were very weak and obftinate creatures, to
oppofe the religion of their country; had
they but understood our Doctor's principle
of a publick wifdom or confcience, and
confi-
1
( xxiv)
confidered religion not as a perfonal but
political matter, they might have saved
themſelves the trouble of perfecution, and
the magistrate the trouble of perfecuting
and destroying them. This, if I am right-
ly informed, is the method of the Jews in
Spain and Portugal at this day, who, to
Save themselves from the tortures of the
Inquifition, fubmit to the publick con-
fcience where they live, and in obedience
to it become themselves many of them in-
quifitors. Oh what an eminent member
would our Doctor make of that Holy So-
ciety, and how powerfully would he re-
quire others to fubmit to the publick_con-
Jcience or wifdom, if he had but the liberty
of making ufe of their methods of perfuafion!
But he tells us, Pref. p. 62 That the
liberty of private judgment in religion
is an inherent right of every man, and
confirmed to every Chriſtian by the gof-
pel. Magna eft veritas, & prævalebit.
Bleſſed be God for fuch a conceffion from
the mouth of a profeffed enemy to liberty
of confcience, and affertor of being requi-
red to fubmit to a publick confcience. If
then the liberty of private judgment is
an inherent right of every man, and con-
firmed to him by the gospel, what buſineſs,
in
( xxv )
in God's name, hath the publick wiſdom
with his confcience? Why must not the
Deift have his rights of private confcience
as well as the Chriftian? Strictly ſpeak-
ing, he owns, this right of private judg-
ment cannot be reftrained; that is, ſpeak-
ing otherwife, it may.
Then let him
Speak strictly, and tell us when, and by
whom. I, on the other hand, affirm, and
will demonftrate, that in no way of ſpeak-
ing what foever, it can be taken away,
and that because, as he himself fays, the
liberty of private judgment is an inhe-
rent right of every man, and confirmed
to him by the gofpel. If this affertion
be true, as I believe it is, what hath the
confcience of a Parliament or Convocation
to do to influence my conscience, who am
allowed by God and nature to judge for
myself?
"Tis this very principle of a publick con-
fcience that hath introduced all the con-
fufions and calamities, that have ever
plagued the Chriftian world upon the ſcore
of religion. Had men but the quiet choice
of their religion, they would be as eafy as
in the choice of their diet or drefs. If no
man was disturbed for his own opinions,
he would have no temptation to disturb
another
( xxvi)
another for his ; or if through an enthu→
fiaftick Spirit he should attempt it, the
civil power hath a right to prevent and
punish him. But when once men come to
fet up their own consciences as a ſtandard
for others, this will be a never-failing
fource of confufions, fightings, and every
evil work; and therefore I will take the
liberty to tell this reverend divine, that
whoever preaches up the doctrine of a
publick confcience, is fo far an incendiary
and common enemy to mankind; and
whoever pretends to vindicate Chriftia-
nity by writing in defence of perfecution,
fcandaloufly betrays the nobleft caufe in the
world, and is a much worse enemy to it,
than a profeſſed Infidel or Deiſt.
But the Doctor perhaps will conde-
fcend to allow the liberty of private judg-
ment, provided the liberty of the prefs
be denied. For he tells us, Pref.
p. 62.
That strictly speaking indeed, the liber-
ty of private judgment or opinion can-
not be taken away or reftrained; but
that an unbounded liberty of publiſhing
that judgment, can be challenged from
no claim of nature, no rule of the gof-
pel; nor reconciled to the order or
even the being of a fociety, founded up-
3
on
( xxvii)
on a certain fyftem of doctrines and rules,
as the Chriftian church is. But I would
ask, how comes a civil fociety and the
Chriſtian church to be the fame thing,
as the Doctor must mean, or elſe his ar-
gument is impertinent? I have ever been
weak enough to think that Chrift's king-
dom is not of this world, and that there-
fore a civil fociety as fuch is not the
Same thing as the church of Christ. Or
how will he prove that the very being
of a fociety doth depend on the profeſſion of
Christianity? I am affured of the con-
trary, because there were many flouriſhing
Societies before the name of Christ was
ever heard of in the world. And if
focieties can fubfift without Christianity,
I apprehend that a fair oppofition to Chri-
Stianity can never be of any differvice to
focieties, especially as they have a power to
protect Chriftians as well as unbelievers;
tho I heartily allow, that no fcheme of
religion whatſoever is ſo well calculated
for the welfare of focieties as the Chri-
ftian. But a liberty of publiſhing a
man's private judgment can't be recon-
ciled to the order or being of a fociety,
founded upon a certain fyftem of doc-
trines and rules, as the Chriſtian church.
d
is.
( xxviii)
4
is. I am heartily ashamed and forry
that a Chriftian writer ſhould ever aſſert
fuch a propofition, which juftifies all the
cruelties and perfecutions of Pagan, and
Popiſh Rome; tho' I am far from charg-
ing the Doctor with the confequence of
it. Was not the fociety or commonwealth
of Pagan Rome founded upon a certain
System of doctrines or rules; and therefore
were not the ancient Chriftians justly pu-
niſhed for publiſhing their private judg-
ment? If they had faith fhould they not
have had it to themſelves? And might
not the Roman priests and magiftrates
have made use of this very argument of the
Doctor's, to the Chriftians, that the liber-
ty of publiſhing your private judgment can
be challenged from no claim of nature, nor
from the very gofpel in which your religion
is contained? And do not the Roman ca-
tholicks to this day act upon a Chriftian
principle, in fuppreffing all heretical books,
in preventing the meetings and preach-
ings of the protestants, and in puniſhing
them for owning and propagating their
notions, if it be true, that the liberty of
publishing a man's private judgment can
be challenged from no claim of nature,
or rule of the goſpel ? If this "be true,
it
( xxix )
it cannot be claimed at all, and therefore
every civil government is in the right to
prohibit fuch a claim, and punish those
who will not obey them. If it cannot be
claimed from nature, or any rule of the
gofpel, it cannot be challenged in any na-
tion whatfoever, and thus all establish-
ments muſt ever remain the fame, let them
be never fo vile and antichriftian. Popery
muſt ever be Popery without oppofition;
Mahometaniſm must continue the ortho-
dox religion of Turkey, and even Paganiſm
be for ever the religion where the publick
wifdom hath established it; and ought to
have continued the religion of thofe coun
tries were Chriſtianity prevailed over it.
For what reafon hath any one publickly to
oppofe any religion, if he cannot challenge
the liberty to publish his fentiments from
nature or the gospel? And thus hath the
Doctor rendred every fort and kind of
religion, by his own principle, for ever ſa-
cred, and taught the civil magiftrate in
every country how to prevent the fubver
fion of old foundations, and ſtop up the
mouths of all gainfayers.
Thus have we taken a view of our
Canon's politicks in religion; and as he
appears to be well versed in the arts to
Support
z
d 2 s
( xxx }
Support a publick confcience, I can affure
the world he is, according to the principles
he hath advanced, as good a cafuift as poli-
tician. Strictly speaking the liberty of
private judgment cannot be reftrained;
but the liberty of publiſhing private opi-
nions cannot be claimed from nature or
the gospel. Now to publish, a man's opi-
nion is to tell it to his neighbour and friend,
'tis to vindicate it when oppofed, 'tis to
worship God according to that opinion, and
to write in defence of it. But this it
Jeems we cannot claim a right to do from
nature or revelation, tho' we cannot be re-
Strained as to private judgment; ì. e. ac-
cording to this principle, we ought to
think privately for our felves, but out-
wardly to profefs what the publick wif-
dom teaches. Not to publish our opinions
is to keep them privately to ones felf, and
by no overt act to declare them to others.
And therefore he who discovers his par-
ticular opinions to others in converſation,
or worships God in a manner agreeable to
his particular opinions, by which manner
of worship he openly publishes his private
opinions, is equally condemned by the Doc-
tor's rules, as he who publishes them from
the prefs. And therefore it follows, that
if
( xxxi )
if any one ſhould happen to differ from the
publick confcience, that he is obliged to
contradict his principles by his practice,
and to believe one thing and fay and do an-
ther, which tho' it may be a maxim of the
reverend Canon Refidentiary at Wells,
I hope is not to be found in the gospels of
Christ, and the epiftles of St. Paul; but
is derived as I fuppofe from a paffage in
Cicero, who, after he had been difputing a-
gainst the publick confcience of the Roman
commonwealth, concludes, Majorum inſti-
tuta tueri facris cerimoniifque retinendis,
fapientis eft. De Div. 1. 2. in fine.
However I am very thankful to God,
that the publick wisdom of Great Britain
is governed by contrary maxims; and that
they have too great a regard to the credit
of religion, and the peace of the nation,
to hearken to the infinuations of thoſe, who
can't be content with the quiet poffeffion of
their own preferments and confciences,
unless they invade the rights, and diſturb ·
the liberties and peace of others.
I would alſo obferve what an excellent
provifion this gentleman hath made for a
new ſet of, I know not which to call
them, Spiritual or civil officers among ft
us. If we have no right to publish our
fentiments,
>
( xxxii)
fentiments, and if the government may re-
quire us to keep them to our felves, the
government may also appoint proper in-
formers and inquifitors, to watch the be-
haviour and converfations of all fufpected
to differ from the publick wifdom; and
alfo perfons to review, alter, caftrate, and
add to books defigned for the preſs, who
ought not to allow their imprimatur to
fuch, as contain any propofitions con-
trary to the publick wifdom. And thus ma-
ny of the clergy that are out of place, or
whofe livings are but ſmall, might be hand-
fomly provided for, and comfortably main-
tained. And how mightily would fuch
an officer add to the decorum of families,
the “chearfulneſs and freedom of conver-
fation, the advancement of learning, and
the honour of Christianity? I would hum-
bly hope, that the Doctor would not be
forgotten in fuch a promotion, who hates
the disbanding fcheme, and hath a grea-
ter opinion of the publick wifdom, than
of a perfonal religion.
I would have added fome more reflec-
tions on the Doctor's preface, but that I
have already fwell'd my own to a larger
fize than I intended; and therefore I shall
content my felf with putting all his prin-
३.
ciples
( xxxiii)
ciples together, and fhewing their confift
ency with each other, and Scripture, for
a warning to the Deifts, a pattern to
Chriftians, and a ſpecimen of the Doc-
tor's ingenuity, and love to liberty and true
religion.
The fervant of
The office of the
clergy requires them the Lord muſt not
to provide medicines ftrive, but be gentle
as well as meat, and unto all men, apt to
to fupply people with teach, patient, in
antidotes equal to meeknefs inftructing
their danger. Dedi- thofe that oppofe
cat. p. 5.
themſelves, 2 Tim.
ii. 24, 25.
Leave to purſue
what every one fhall
think fit to call the
dictates of his natu-
ral reaſon, what ef-
fects must they have
on morality, civil
peace, the fecurity
and influence of go-
vernment? Publick
We follicit not wisdom may furely
the countenance of be permitted, with-
ous
( xxxiv)
the great, or the affif- out the imputation
tance of authority, of unreasonable feve-
from any distrust of rity, to restrain men
our caufe, or our a- from thus fcattering
bilities to defend it.
ibid. P. 7.
:
Religion is a part,
arrows, firebrands
and death amongst
us. His facred Ma-
jefty will, we doubt
not, apply remedies a-
greeable to his wif
dom, and reſcue him-
felf and your Royal
Highneſs from the
terrible prospect of
governing a people
without any religi-
on. Ded. p. 8, 9. If
my kingdom were
of this world, then
would my fervants
fight.
But now
is my kingdom not
from hence, John.
xviii. 36.
My kingdom is
and a most valuable not of this world,
part of our legal pro. Joh. vii. 36.
perties. p. 8.
Our
( XXXV )
Our religion is in-
corporated into our
civil conftitution, and
become a legal part
of our properties; as
much fecured to us
by the oaths of our
princes, and the au-
thority and fancti-
ons of our laws, as
our lives and for-
Other foundation
tunes. On this ar- can no man lay, than
gument we know the that is laid, which is
revolution, and the Jefus Chrift. 1 Cor.
happy fettlement con- iii. 11.
Sequent to it were
founded, and we are
firmly affured, that
his Majefty's royal
wisdom and juſtice
will not permit, nor
his counsellors ad
vife the fubverfion
of that foundation.
Pref. p. 42.
The Chriftian re- Are questions of
ligion did not obtain this importance to be
the favour of civil kept open for ever?
P. 43.
( xxxvi)
eftablishments, with- [p. 43. An unbound:
out due confiderati-ed liberty of publiſh-
on. It had been dif- ing a man's pri
puted near four bun-vate judgment can't
dred years; every ob- be challenged from
jection that perfons nature or the gospel,
of as much learning or without the call
and parts as this of the civil power.
writer can pretend p. 62, 63. Prove all
to,could fuggeft, had things, hold faſt that
been heard and refu- which is good, I
ted, and then upon Theff. v. 21.
full conviction
Let
us ftraitly threaten
it received the en-them,that they ſpeak
couragement of the
civil power. p. 42.
henceforth to no
man in this name,
Acts iv. 17.
While our laws
The clergy will continue in force, he
appear with much must not expect they
zeal and activity a- fhould stand still, and
gainſt libertiniſm and be only idle fpectators
anarchy, and be little
moved by the fear of
Suffering. Pref.p. 45.
of the conteft, p. 44.
They that ufe the
fword fhall perish by
the fword, Matth.
xxvi. 52.
when
【 xxxvii)
When every one
In the days of the was left to devife his
great rebellion our own religion, provi-
fathers faw this uni-ded he would re-
verfal liberty in its nounce that before
full latitude and ex-eftablished, Pref. 48.
tent.
Excellent liberty,
with ſuch a proviſi-
on:
In ſome queſtions
The liberty of pri- a man may reafona-
vate judgment in re-bly prefer the au-
ligion I acknowledge thority of publick
to be an inherent wisdom, and may be
right of every man, justly required fo to
and confirmed to eve-do, p. 54. If the blind
ry Chriftian by the lead the blind, both
gospel, p. 62.
ſhall fall into the
ditch, Mat. xv. 14:
I appeal to this
gentleman himself,
whether he can feri-
oufly think the bulk
of mankind capable
of examining, with
The wisdom of that accuracy his
God has, with great fcheme fuppofes, (i. c.
e 2
fo
?
1-
( xxxviii )
condefcention, adapt-fo accurately as to
ed the rules and evi-find out the truth,for
dences of the Chri- the fcheme fuppofes
nothing farther) the
Stian religion to the
general capacities of
mankind, p. 54.
Chriftian religion; of
debating the proofs
objections and replies,
and collecting thepro-
t
per conclufion from
the whole. ibid. Hath
not God choſen the
poor of this world,
rich in faith, and
heirs of the king-
dom? Jam. ii. 5.
But by theſe per-
fons (which this un-
reaſonable perverſe
author of the Li-
teral Scheme intends
the information of)
the question hath been
confidered and con-
Perhaps he included long before he
tends only the fatif- was born. ibid. I am
faction of perfons of of the Doctor's mind
learning and study, here, that 'tis a very
and the information fad thing this author
fhould
( xxxix)
of thofe in publick ſhould not let alone
authority, when they people born fo long
make laws for regu- before him, and re-
lating focieties, p. 55. fuſe them the liber-
ty to act according
to their confcience
and conviction. 'Tis
worse than Pagan-
ifm and Popery thus
to diſturb the aſhes
of the dead.
I think it equally
Liberty of private my duty to contend
judgment in religion for authority. ibid.
I acknowledge. p.62. One is your maſter,
even Chrift. Matth.
xxiii. 8.
I do not perfuade But a man may be
any man to be refign-justly required to pre-
ed to authority. p. fer the authority of
62. nor the civil ma-publick wisdom. p.
giftrate to punish any 54. Let every man
one for the perfuafi- be perfuaded in his
ons of his confcience. own mind, Rom.
P. 64.
xiv. 5.
But
(x1)
7
Strictly speaking
the liberty of private
judgment can't be ta-
ken away. p. 62.
But as Chriftia
nity is by its inftituti-
on a focial religion,
the liberty of each in-
dividual must be un-
der reftraints. ibid.
Stand faft in the li
wherewith
berty
Chriſt hath made us
free, Gal. v. I.
What ſhall we do
to theſe men - let
us ftraitly threaten
them, that
ſpeak henceforth to
they
no man in this name.
An unbounded li- And they called
berty of publishing them, and com-
a man's private judg-manded them not
ment---can't be recon- to ſpeak at all, nor
ciled to the order or teach in the name of
even being of a focie-Jefus. But Peter
ty, founded upon a and John anſwered
certain fyftem of doc- and faid unto them,
trines and rules as whether it be right
the Chriftian church
is. p. 62.
in the fight of God,
to hearken unto you,
more than
unto
God
(xli)
God, judge ye. For
we cannot but ſpeak
the things which we
have ſeen and heard,
Acts iv. 18, &c.
Without fome call
of this nature (i. c.
of the civil magi-
Atrate) there appears
no general obligation
of reafon or religion
which requires a man
to publish his fenti-
ments, and fet up
for a teacher and
converter of others to
them, especially in
oppofition to publick The Chriftian re-
eftabliſhments. p. 63.ligion did not obtain
This principle of the the favour of civil
Doctor's arraigns the leftablishments, with-
wiſdom and justice out a course of difpu
of our bleſſed Savi-tation of near four
our, who publifhed hundred years. p. 43.
his opinions without
the call of the civil
magiſtate, and in op-
poſition to the pub-
Tet
( xlii )
lick eſtabliſhment of
Judaiſm; and of the
Apoſtles who pub-
liſhed theirs, not on-
ly without the leave,
but contrary to the
expreſs order of the
civil magiſtrate.
A man may not
be beaten for oppof-
Tet his hands may
be held without per-
fecution. p. 65. Pray-
ing for us that God
would open to us a
fing the established door of utterance,
religion. p. 64.
to ſpeak the myſtery.
of Chrift, that I may
make it manifeft as
I ought to ſpeak
Col. iv. 3,4.
I
This is the reverend Doctor Roger's
account of the nature of Christianity,
and of the arguments to fupport it. It is
founded on authority, and on an Act of
Parliament like the Revolution, and the
Hanover fucceffion. It came into the
world through a difputation of near four
hundred years ſtanding; it was preached
and
( xliii )
and published in oppofition to the leave
and exprefs command of the civil power,
tho' there be no general obligation of rea-
fon or religion, which requires a man to
publish his fentiments, and ſet up for a
teacher and converter of others, especial-
ly in oppofition to publick eſtabliſhment.
It is incorporated into our civil conftitu-
tion, and therefore men may be required
to fubmit to publick wifdom, and the
clergy will appear with much zeal and ac-
tivity in defence of it, and take care to
put the laws in force, that they mayn't
Stand still, and be only idle fpectators of
the conteft, And tho' the liberty of pri-
vate judgment can't be taken away, yet
the liberty of each individual muſt be
under reſtraint; and if they are not to be
beaten for thinking, they must have their
hands tied up from writing; and he ſhould
have added, their tongues tied up from
Speaking too.
To all which I ſhall make no other
reply, but that if this be the Doctor's Chri-
Stianity its not mine; and that if the
methods he recommends were really pre-
ſcribed by Christ and his Apostles, I
could be no more a believer in Chriftia-
f
nity,
(xliv )
nity, than I am at prefent in Mahome-
tanifm, which I abhor for one reason, a-
mongſt many others, that it was propa-
gated at firft by the fword, and still pro-
hibits all enquiries and difputations about
it.
That Christianity hath been disputed,
and established by former ages, cannot in
the nature of things be any reafon for
any perfon's believing it at prefent; but
is a fufficient proof, that it is a religion
capable of bearing difputation, and that
therefore it may be difputed. If every ob-
jection, that perfons of learning and parts
could fuggeft, hath been heard and refuted,
what harm can the revival of thoſe ob-
jections do? Are not the prefent learned
clergy capable of refuting them, and will it
not be their honour to do it? And hath
not the author of the Literal Scheme as
much a natural right to urge thoſe ob-
jections, as thoſe who first made them had
in the beginning of Chriftianity? But I
Should be very much obliged to the Doc-
tor, if he would be fo good as to tell me
the names of those writers, that have
thus refuted all the objections against
Christianity. Surely the Biſhop of Litch-
field,
( xlv)
1
field, Doctor Clark, Mr. Sykes, and Doc-.
tor Rogers might have spared their pains,
and have kept their books to themselves,
and been content to refer us to thoſe learnea
writers, that have thus cleared up all our
difficulties. I should be particularly pleafed
to read that book, where the matter of pro-
phecy is fully stated and fixed upon a plain,
unexceptionable and rational foundation,
and I challenge the Doctor to produce it. If
be con't, 'tis but a mean way to talk of
petulant fcriblers, and charge men that
propofe their difficulties with an iich to
fhew their skill in argument, and revive
a controversy; who may jufty retort the
charge of petulant fcriblers upon thoſe
who rail instead of argue, and call aloud
for the restraints of the civil power; who
itch I believe not so much to shew their
skill in controverfy, as to tye up mens
hands, and exercife dominion over their
confciences.
The author of the Literal Scheme hath,
in my opinion, urged many things worthy
of confideration, that are not to be an-
fwered with a fmart faying, and the
Solemn charge of a petulant fcribler. He
hath propofed difficulties that will try
f 2
the
( xlvi)
the learning and beft reafon of his Chri
ftian adverfaries; and I wish for his fake,
and that his argument might have been
confidered without prejudice and refent-
ment, that he had uſed nothing but ar-
gument in the performance. If I have
mixed any thing of refentment or Severity
with the following reflections, 'tis not, I
affure that author, out of any difreſpect
to his perfon, whom I value and honour
as far as he is an impartial fearcher af-
ter truth; but from a natural abhor-
rence I have to every unfair method of
cwriting, and to fhew him that reflections
may be easily returned upon him that
makes them, that we may for the future
reafon strictly, and confine our felves en-
tirely to the argument.
They who difputed Christianity in for-
mer ages, before they believed it, acted a
wife and honeft part, and there is no more
virtue in an implicit faith in our times
than there was in theirs. Every man
that hath opportunity and capacity, ought
to confider the matters difputed of, and to
enter into the real merits of the cause, if
he would believe upon any foundation of
reaſon and truth." A Deift will think
himself
( xlvii )
himself more especially obliged to it, be-
cauſe the piety and prudence of the pub-
lick confcience heretofore, caufed fome of
the principal writings against Christianity
to be deſtroyed. This very thing will
naturally raise a fufpicion of fome weak-
nefs in a caufe, the defenders of which took
fuch an extraordinary step to fupport it.
And therefore every man that would not be
impos'd on, and that hath any regard to his
honour and his acceptance with God, ought
to enquire for himself, and difregard in
this refpect the publick confcience, and the
authority of publick wifdom; the religion
of the parliament or church being no more
to him as fuch, than the religion of a Si-
amefe or Brachman.
For religion, as it implies a belief of
certain principles, and a peculiar method of
worshiping God, faid to be contained in
one or another revelation, is, whether the
Doctor will allow it or no, a purely per-
fonal matter, and every man ought to be
perfuaded in his own mind of the nature
of its proofs, and doctrines, and princi-
ples, and to diffent from the publick con-
fcience if he finds it erroneous, in any or
every article of its publick belief, fince no
man
ๆ
( xlviii)
man is to be ſaved or damned hereafter
for the faith or practice of his fuperi-
ors in Church or State, and becauſe nei-
ther nature nor revelation hath given or
can give them a right or power to judge
or believe for others. And if this be true,
every man hath a right to all methods of
information, and of confequence to know
all the objections that can be reasonably
urged against the religion of the publick
wisdom; fince no caufe can be judged of
impartially before both fides of the question
are understood. And therefore every man
hath a right from nature and religion to
publifh his difficulties, that they may be
fairly debated, because he hath a right
both to be fatisfied himself in the nature
and evidence of religion, and to reform
and convert others from their errors And
therefore I affure the Doctor I am very
far gone into the disbanding Scheme, i. e.
I would have all church Regiments for the
propagating religion by dint of authority
and tying up mens hands, disbanded,
broken, and ſcattered as duft before the
wind. The business of Chriftian Stewards
is to feed the people, i. c. to teach and
preach the genuine doctrines of Chriftia-
4
nity :
( xlix )
nity; and if medicines and antidotes must
come in, they ought to adminifter fuch as
are most gentle and eafy, that they may
be looked on not only as faithful stewards,
but as kind and compaffionate physicians
too; i. c. by their virtuous lives and folid
arguments they must be able to convince
gainfayers. Other antidotes you'll not find
in the gospel of Christ, and to uſe others
is a certain fign of Quackery and Impof-
ture.
I shall only add, to fet this worthy
divine right, if I fhall prove fo happy, in
one important article, that when univerfal
liberty is infifted on, 'tis not meant à li-
berty to revile and rail at religion or pub-
lick eſtabliſhments; nor a liberty to act
contrary to the peace and order of focie-
ties; nor a liberty to turn men out of thoſe
livings and preferments, that are appointed
by publick wiſdom for the encouragement
of virtue and learning, nor a liberty to tie
up the hands of the magistrate from cen-
・furing and reftraining and punishing of-
fenders against the peace and good order
of civil fociety. The author of the Literal
Scheme means no fuch liberty as this as I
can find, tho' the Doctor reprefents him, as
pleafed
(1)
pleaſed to think, that whoever contends
for any publick eſtabliſhments ought to
be made an example and taken to
task for his doctrines. This is an unfaith-
ful repreſentation of what he hath ſaid,
who only argues upon the fuppofition of
Some mens beating others into the gospel,
that fuch perfons ought to be made ex-
amples, if they teach any thing contrary
to the religion of the establishment. And
herein he is in the right, and hath the
argument on his fide. And I heartily wish
that every civil magistrate would act by
every man, whether of the clergy or laity
who recommends perfecution, as Phalaris
is faid to have done by the perſon who
invented the brazen bull, who was himself
put into it to feaſon the brass, and to make
the firft effay and experiment of its vir-
tues.
The liberty pleaded for, is only a liber-
ty for mankind peaceably and quietly to
think for themſelves, to examine into the
nature and evidence of religion, with can-
didness and good manners to debate its
difficulties, to worship God according to
their confciences, and to pay no more defe-
rence to publick authority in theſe things,
either
(li)
either as to notion or practice, than they
themselves are convinced in confcience
they ought to do. And in this liberty they
think they have a right to be protected
from all manner of perfecution or violence,
whether it be by branding them with names
of infamy or disgrace, tying up their hands,
Stopping their mouths, imprisoning their
perfons, condemning them to fines, cutting
off their ears, tying them to the whipping
poft, or any other method of wholfom fe-
verity the Doctor or his friends may think
fit to recommend. They allow no authority
of any kind or degree to the prince, or the
prieſt, or the mob to dictate to their confci-
ences, or require their ſubmiſſion in matters
of religion to the public authority. They
think the civil government is only concern-
ed about civil affairs, and that the mini-
fters of the gospel are to preach up virtue, pi-
ty, charity, and univerfal benevolence, to
refcue the vitious from the power of fin,
and to convince the erroneous by reafon and
argument ; that they ought not to influence
mens paffions, to call fire from heaven, or
the fword from the earth, but to conform
themſelves to the example of Chrift who,
when reviled, reviled not again, and to the
Apostles
}
( lii )
Apostles of Chrift, who approved them-
felves his minifters, not by flattering the
princes of the earth into the love of tyran-
ny and perfecution, but by pureness of life.
and doctrine, and spiritual weapons of
their warfare.
This is the only liberty I plead for, and
'tis evident that ſuch a liberty is neceſſary
to the honour of Christianity, and every
way confiftent with the peace of focieties;
and without fuch a liberty of fairly rea-
foning and writing against publick efta-
blifhments, Christianity could not have
been eſtabliſhed at first, nor can our focie-
ties for propagating Chriftian know-
ledge among the Indians and Pagans be
juftified and defended. Had this fociety
ever any folemn deputation from the In-
dian Sachems to fend miffionaries amongst
them, when they were first appointed?
Or do thofe miffionaries now never preach,
or ſet up for converters of Indians, with-
out the call of their Chiefs? I am very
apt to think, they have fometimes preach-
ed before they were thus publickly fent for,
and that they had good reafon to do it, if
they were willing to run the hazard of it.
But I am fure that Doctor Rogers must
either
{
( liii)
*
either renounce his principles, that no
men have a right to fet up for teachers
and converters of others to them, with-
out fome call of the civil magiſtrate,
or elfe condemn thofe focieties, as acting
without any obligation from reafon and
religion. The right reverend the Bishops,
who by their purses and fermons have en-
couraged them, will undoubtedly thank
him for fuch a compliment, and kindly
remember him in the next vacant benefice.
But the Doctor is afraid of the dif
turbance of the peace of focieties, if this
liberty of Setting up for converters of
others fhould be allowed.
But in my
paar apprehenſion the Doctor's fcheme is
much more inconfiftent with the peace and
welfare of Societies. The liberty of the
prefs is one glorious prefervative against
tyranny in Church and State, against the
progress of fuperftition, prieftcraft, falfe
doctrine and herefy. While the prefs is
open, all arguments
arguments in favour of theſe
things will not fail to be confidered and
refuted, whereby intrigueing and ambitious
men will be curbed, falfe principles will
have but little influence, and the liberties
civil and religious of mankind be more
g 2
effectu-
( liv )
effectually fecured. Religion will be, not
the effect of blind obedience to, and implicit
belief of thoſe, who may have an intereſt
to ſupport by ignorance and deceit, but of
free choice and impartial enquiry. And
when men are thus eafy in their con-
Sciences and properties, what inducements
can they have to diſturb the peace of
Societies, or the government that affords
them protection and Safety? According
to my Scheme every man will be at peace
himfelf, and hindred from interrupting
the peace of every one elfe. Perfons of
meaner capacities will this way have
more abundant affiftance to direct and
form their judgments, the clergy will
have fufficient leifure to pursue their
ftudies, and the objections of learned and
inquifitive men give them opportunity of
entring into the difficulties of Chriftiani-
ty, of clearing them up, and placing it
upon a furer foundation of truth and rea-
fon. For my own part I heartily believe
the revelation of the gospel; as I think
it the caufe of God, I admire the bene-
volence of its original author, all bis
doctrines breathing charity, and love un-
feigned, and his precepts recommending
meekness
(lv)
meekness and mutual forbearance. I
heartily approve the conduct of the in-
Spired Apostles, who propagated the reli-
gion of their blessed master only by perfua-
fion and argument, and defire nothing fo
fervently as to be inftrumental to do Jome
Service, in defence of an inftitution, that
So abundantly provides for the honour of
the fupreme Being, the peace of fo-
cieties, the rights of confcience, and there-
by the prefent and future welfare of man-
kind. And tho I wish well to every
hand that honourably engages in the de-
fence of it, of whatever party of Chri-
ftians it be, and rejoyce in the provifion
that is made for learned, pious and peace-
able divines in the publick establishment;
yet I shall never cease to pray: From all
publick confciences, from tying up of
hands, from requiring men to fubmit
to authority, from a political religion,
from penal laws, from a perfecuting cler-
gy, and from arbitrary government, from
all fuch falfe doctrine, hereſy and ſchifm,
good Lord deliver us. And may God of
his infinite mercy long preferve the in-
valuable life of his facred Majefty, to keep
off thofe evils from us, and ever grant us
3
a race
( Ivi )
a race of princes from his illuftrious
house that may inherit his royal virtues,
and follow his maxims of government,
that have made this nation happy, and
will render his memory for ever bleſſed.
I would not be understood by any thing
above written to difcredit the Doctor's
eight fermons. I hope they are better
than his preface; tho' it is a maxim with
me never to read a defence of Chriftia-
nity, that is introduced with a profeſſed
defence of the principles of perfecution.
الن اخر
Reflecti-
REFLECTIONS
ON THE
CONDUCT
OF THE
Modern Deifts, &c.
T
HE author of the Difcourfe of
theGrounds and Reaſons of the
Christian Religion having fet
himſelf at the head of thoſe,
who ſeem to deny the truth of Chriſtiani-
ty, and who endeavour to fubvert the
foundations on which it is fupported, by
repreſenting them as precarious and irra-
tional; and having, in his late defence
of that book, intitled, The literal fcheme
of Prophecy confidered, pretended to de-
tect the falſe reaſonings of the Biſhop of
Litchfield and Coventry's book, and to
A 2
cut
(4)
cut off all pretences both from his Lord-
fhip, and all other Chriftian writers,
for the application of the old Teftament
prophecies to our bleffed Lord in the li-
teral fenfe: I apprehended, it might not
be improper to give the world a gene-
ral view of his fcheme of arguing, that
all may judge of the integrity and can-
didnefs of this writer, and of his capa-
city for the work he hath undertaken.
This I have done with the greateſt im-
partiality I was capable of; having cited
at large his own words, and drawn no
confequences from them, but what appear
to me to have been intended by him-
felf, or elſe are the natural and neceffa-
ry ones. And this I judged the more
neceffary, becauſe I am ſo happy as to
agree with him in a very judicious obfer-
vation he hath made in his Scheme of Li-
teral Prophecy p. 386. That it is the chief
part of a controvertift to prove his point,
and anfwer his adverfary, or at least to
make the best of his caufe. And that
there is also an inferior or indirect part,
which confifts in the practice of certain
arts, that a controvertit falls into, ac-
cording to his particular genius and tem-
per, and thinks ferviceable to his cauſe.
What
(5)
1
What arts 1 have obferved moft re-
markable in the author of The Grounds
&c. (wherein, amongst others, the reader
muſt have obſerved his great and never
failing art of using Jewish and Chriſtian
authorities to variety of purposes) I have laid
together in the following papers; where-
in I have fhewn how well he hath kept
to his point, and what one may reaſon-
ably think to be his genius and prevail-
ing temper. If any thing ſhall appear in
my repreſentation of his conduct to be
a little too ſevere, he will, I am perfuad-
ed, the more eafily forgive me, becauſe
I have taken the liberty to uſe his own
expreffions, where I judged even the fe-
vereſt rebuke to be neceffary; which, if
they were becoming him to make uſe of
towards one, whom he knew to be a
Bishop of the established Church, will much
more become me, who apply them to an
anonymous author, of whofe ftation, cha-
racter, and circumftances I know nothing
certain. I confefs, I have been often in-
duced to think, that the author of The
Grounds could not be the perfon gene-
rally ſuſpected, becauſe there are ſo ma-
ny appearances of want of politeneſs, and
regard to truth and decency. And I am
the
(6)
the more confirmed in it, by fome very
extraordinary and unparallel'd inftances of
this nature in the Literal Scheme, in which
the author, forgetting his point, makes
perſonal attacks only, and that without
regarding the circumftances of the per-
fon he is pleaſed to uſe with ſuch free-
dom and ſeverity. But herein I neither
affirm or deny: I heartily wifh, who-
ever he be, that he had fpar'd me the
trouble of theſe reflections, and himſelf
the uneafinefs, that a cool review of his
own temper and conduct muſt certainly
occafion.
I am far from thinking that the writers
in behalf of Chriſtianity are all free from
the charge of uſing unjuſtifiable methods
in the defence of their cauſe, and I have
as real an abhorrence of tricks, and quib-
bles, and reproaches in one ſet of men,
as I have in another. A good caufe can-
not juſtify them, how much foever a
bad one may need them. And as I fhou'd
not be at all diſpleaſed if they were put
together, and for the conviction of every
Chriſtian writer that uſes them fairly ex-
poſed; ſo I ſhall take the liberty to give
the world a full view of the unfair me-
thods made uſe of by the enemies of re-
velation,
(7)
velation, to render it contemptible:
which I do for this reafon principally,
and with this hope, that their next at-
tack may be open and candid, and al-
together fuch, as fhall argue him that
makes it an honeſt man, and an imparti-
al fearcher after truth.
The first thing that I fhall remark in
their conduct, is their high encomiums
on liberty, and pleading for the abſolute
neceſſity of it, in writing, and ſpeaking
their fentiments, and in propofing and
urging their difficulties to the confide-
ration of others. This they repreſent as
a natural right, of which none can be de-
prived without the greateſt injury to
themſelves, and prejudice to truth. This
is the common cry of the party.
In this ftrain the author of the Grounds
and Reaſons runs on, &c. Preface to his
Difcourfe p. 5. In matters of opinion, it
is every man's natural right and duty to
think for himself, and to judge upon fuch
evidence as he can procure to himſelf, af-
ter he hath done his best endeavours to
get information. And again, p. 6. As it is
every man's natural right and duty to
think, and judge for himself in matters
of opinion, fo he shou'd be allowed freely
to
( 8 )
to profefs his opinions, and to endeavour,
when he judges proper, to convince o-
thers alfo of their truth, provided thofe
opinions do not tend to the disturbance of
fociety. See the whole Preface through-
out. Thus alfo in the Literal Scheme,
p. 406, &c. the author tells us, That
every ferious man hath fome end in life in
view. That the true end - is happiness
during the extent of his being. That the
means to attain fuch happineſs-muſt be
a fincere endeavour to know and obey the
will of God. That the means or way to
find out or know the will of God is im-
partially, and with regard to truth only,
to enquire, to reafon, to debate about his
will. That therefore whoever promotes
inquiry and examination into the truth of
things is a true friend to men. — That
there is no folid foundation for comfort
and fatisfaction of mind, and for con-
fidence towards God and merit with him,
but in having fincerly endeavour'd, by en-
quiry and examination into things, to find
out his will and to obey it.
That men
ought naturally to publish fuch of their
thoughts and opinions which they deem
beneficial to men, and tending to their peace
and welfare.
3
t
I allow
(9)
I allow theſe gentlemen that thus far
their caufe is good, and I am as firmly
perfuaded, as they would wiſh me to be,
that they have the ſame right, as Chriſti-
ans, to think for themſelves, and
even to declare their opinions in con-
verfation, and publiſh them in print,
and to defend them by all the methods
of argument and reafon; provided their
opinions do not tend to diſturb the pub-
lick peace. But I cannot help making
theſe few remarks, on this general preface
to their writings.
1. That by thus pleading for liberty,
when writing againſt Chriſtianity, they
ſeem to infinuate that Chriftianity con-
tains fome maxims and principles de-
ftructive to this liberty, and is a religion
that requires it felf to be fupported by
violence and force. If they believe that
the goſpel of Chriſt allowed an univer-
fal right of private judgment, why do
they preface their elaborate writings a-
gainſt it with ſuch high encomiums of,
fuch ftrong proteftations and arguments
for liberty? Why muft the fages of
Rome and Greece be introduced as the
great patrons and defenders of this prin-
ciple, and Jefus and his Apoftles never
B
mentioned:
{
( 10 )
mentioned? who declare, the former, that
his Kingdom was not of this world, and
that those who use the fword fhall perish
by it b; and the latter, that the weapons of
their warfare were not carnal but fpiritual;
and that they approved themselves and
their doctrine only by patience, faftings,
pureness, long fuffering, knowledge, love un-
feigned, by the word of truth, by the power
of God, by the armour of righteousness,
and fuch other excellent practices and
principles.
If Jefus and his Apoftles were of per-
fecuting principles, let it, in God's name,
be made appear; it will with me out-
weigh the ſtrongeft arguments for the
truth of their religion, fince nothing
can be more contrary to the nature of
God and man than perfecution for con-
ſcience fake of any kind. If they ap-
pear on the other hand to be the no-
bleft affertors of liberty, yea if their very
religion be founded on this principle,
'tis unfair and difingenuous in our ad-
verfaries not to own it; eſpecially when
the argument for liberty would be urged
from their authority with peculiar force
and ſucceſs on thoſe, who think them-
felves obliged to fubmit to it. And tho'
• Joh. xvi. 36.
b Mat. xxvi. 52..
2 Cor. vi. 4. &c.
2
I ad-
( 11 )
I admire, on many accounts, the preface
to the Difcourfe of the Grounds, &c. yet
I'll take the freedom to tell the author
of that difcourfe and his brethren, that
the paffage, juft now cited from St.
Paul, is a much nobler recommendati-
on and defence of the principles of li-
berty, than he or they will ever be able -
to publiſh to the world, tho' they bring
in all the learning of the East and West
to their affiftance. Or elfe,
2. If they do this juftice to Chriftiani-
ty, as to allow that it contains nothing in
favour of perfecution, yet by thus plead-
ing for liberty when they oppoſe it, they
ſeem to charge fome of the profeffors
of it with holding principles contrary
to and deftructive of it. And I heartily
wiſh they were not able to make the
charge good. But I dare not argue againſt
plain facts. 'Tis too true to be denied
that too many of the clergy in all ages
of the church have been acted by a ſpirit
of ambition and pride; have been forward
to make creeds, and impofe the belief
of them upon others; have been enemies
to freedom of enquiry, and the right of
private judgment; have excommunicated
and damn'd fuch as differ'd from them,
В 2
and
( 12 )
and rais'd up the fecular power to impriſon,
fine and murther thofe, who could not
fubdue their confciences to an implicit
belief of their decifions in matters of
faith. The hiftory of all the councils that
have been held fince the Apoftles days,
and the conftant practice of the church,
ever fince the civil magiſtrate hath been
its tool and flave, are too melancholy
proofs of the truth of it. But I will not
rake into this ſcandal, but leave this plea-
fure to the enemies of Chriftianity
that they may at least do fome good, and
by paſt examples, fhame us out of all
the remains of this curfed and antichrif
tian ſpirit and practice.
2
'Tis with great pleaſure, that I obſerve
that the principles of liberty are every
day gaining ground, and that a cenfori
ous perfecuting bigot is now generally
looked on with contempt, and treated
as a common enemy to mankind. Grave
looks, and magifterial dictates must now
no longer paſs for arguments: The ipfe
dixit of a father, or fchool-man, of every
man, and every ſet of men, hath loft its
power. We have to do with men capa-
ble of thinking and judging for them-
felves, of ſearching into the records of
antiquity,
( 13 )
antiquity, and who will not fuffer them-
felves to be ſhamm'd off with pious frauds,
and weak and inconcluſive reaſonings. If
we would do Chriftianity any real fer-
vice, we muſt enter into other meaſures
we muſt lay aſide the haughty air, and af
fuming temper, and expect to believed
no farther than we can prove. Our ene-
mies fhould be invited, encouraged and
challenged to produce their objections,
and to reaſon againſt us without any fear
either as to their perfons or purſes. 'Tis
a weak and a bad cauſe that needs fines
and impriſonments to fupport it.
And indeed this feems to be the com-
mon ſenſe of the prefent age. There
are but few, and thofe contemptible e-
nough, that place all religion in myſtery
and darkneſs, that cry out of the dan-
ger of enquiry, and are afraid of the light
and teft of reafon. The civil govern-
ment is juſt and generous, invades no
man's right of conſcience, nor threatens
him with puniſhment for the greateft
difference of judgment in matters of re-
ligion. It will be an everlaſting monu-
ment of glory to his prefent Majefty,
and what will render his name and me-
mory ever dear and facred to the beſt
friends
(14)
friends of Chriſtianity, that he hath con-
defcended to be an interceffor with fo-
reign ſtates in behalf of their oppreffed
fubjects, even where there hath been a
formula confenfus as the eſtabliſhed faith
and doctrine of the country; and that he
hath labour'd to heal the differences of
Proteftants, not by perfuading them to
that impracticable thing, an uniformity
of opinion, but to peace and charity and
mutual forbearance, the nobleſt cement
of the Chriftian church, and the ftrong-
cft bond of union: That he hath ad-
vanced fo many perfons to the higheſt
ftations of the eſtabliſhed church at
home, eminent for their moderation,
and tender regard to differing confcien-
ces; and who endeavour to ſpread the
fame divine fpirit thro'out all the orders
of the inferior clergy: That he hath laid
a reſtraint upon the violent tempers of
fome few perfecuting bigots, and not
entrufted them with a power, they have
always fhewn themſelves fo ready to a-
buſe; and thereby prevented a great deal
of fhame to the church of England, and
fcandal to the caufe of our common
Chriſtianity; ſo that not only diffen-
ters from the publick eſtabliſhment are to-
lerated,
( 15 )
lerated, and fecured in many of their
rights as men and Chriſtians, but even
diffenters from Christianity it felf have
been fuffer'd to enjoy and publiſh their
ſentiments, without any other oppofiti-
on but that of reaſon and argument.
And why fhould they not? If Chriſtiani-
ty be true, it will ftand firm againſt their
attacks, as an houfe founded on a rock,
that repels the impotent rage of winds
and waves: If it be not true, if it be
an impofture, 'tis not a religion for wife
and good men, who would be glad to
diſcard it for a better fyftem of princi-
ples and morals. If Jefus Chrift defign-
ed that his religion fhould be defended
by civil terrors and puniſhments, why
did he not at firft propagate it by the
fame means? Had he propagated it at
firſt by reaſon, and afterwards endeavour'd
to ſupport it by the fword, it would
have argued an inconfiftent character,
and ſhewn his religion to have been con-
trary to, or varied from it felf. Nor
can Chriſtianity any more plead for its
right to be believed, and continued as
the eſtabliſhed religion by preſcription
and cuſtom, than Paganiſm or Judaism
could heretofore; or than Mahomitanifm
can
( 16 )
can now where it prevails. The fole
claim it hath on the conſciences of men
is, that it is a religion worthy of God,
and publiſhed to the world by his autho-
rity. And therefore the civil magiftrate
can have no right to enforce the belief
of any particular opinions, faid to be
Chriſtian, no nor of real Chriſtianity
it felf, except they can convince the
confciences of men by the evidence
of truth; and if they can do this,
men will believe it, without any fecu-
lar motives or methods of perfuafion.
But to prevent any outcry againſt my
felf, for thus pleading in behalf of uni-
verfal liberty, I fhall produce the glori-
ous teftimony of two of the antient apo-
logifts for Chriftianity. Thus Tertulliana,
Every man hath anatural right and liber-
ty to worship what he thinks fit, and no
ones religion either hurts or profits ano-
ther. It cannot therefore be religion
to force religion, which ought to be
voluntarily embraced, and not through
violence. In like manner alfo argues
a Tertull. ad Scapulam c. ii. Humani juris & naturalis
poteftatis eft unicuique quod putaverit colere, nec alii
obeft aut prodeft alterius religio: fed nec religionis eſt
cogere religionem, quæ fponte fufcipi debeat, non vi.
Lactantius,
(17)
Lactantius: There is no need of violence
and injuries, for religion cannot be forced,
and the will is to be gain'd by arguments,
and not by ſtripes. Let our enemies try
all their ftrength and wit; if their rea-
fons are good, let them be produced. We
are ready to hear, if they'll inftruct us.
And in many other places to the fame
purpoſe. So that in pleading for an uni-
verfal liberty for men to publiſh and ar-
gue for their fentiments, whether in fa-
vour of, or againſt Chriſtianity, I am fol-
lowing the example of the best antient
defenders of the Chriftian faith; who
fhew'd the high opinion they entertain'd
of the religion of Jefus, by inviting others
to a fair and impartial debate, and their
honeſty, in publickly declaring they
would ſubmit to reaſon, whoever pro-
duced it. Theſe are patterns worthy
the imitation of our modern Clergy,
who I hope have virtue enough to deſpiſe
the little infults that are made on their
characters by the enemies to revelation,
b Lactantius 1. 5. c. xx. Non eft opus vi & injuria,
quia religio cogi non poteft; verbis potius quam verberi-
bus res agenda eft, ut fit voluntas. Diftringant aciem
ingeniorum fuorum, fi ratio eorum vera eft, afferatur:
parati fumus audire, fi doceant.
C
3
and
( 18 )
and to chuſe, with St. Paul, rather to be
defamed, reproached and injured, than to
try fuch methods of reparation, as thoſe
enemies will not fail to charge as the
effect of a bigotted and perfecuting tem-
per. And as the author of the Grounds
and Reaſons, &c. hath not been puniſh-
ed for that difcourfe, either in his per-
fon or bookfeller, fo I hope the two vo-
lumes in defence of it, that now lye fculk-
ing in the dark, and are fecretly hand-
ed about as a formidable attack on the
Chriſtian religion, will foon be fold with-
out any hazard to the publiſher, as I am
fure they may be perus'd without any
real danger to the careful reader.
And I am the more heartily follicitous
on this account, becauſe of a report cur-
rent about this city, of a profecution re-
folved on againſt all that ſhall be found
ſpreading theſe books; which I take to
be highly injurious to thofe worthy and
reverend perfons faid to be concern'd in
it; and an artifice of the author of the
Literal Scheme, or of his friends, to raiſe
the reputation of his new books, and to
infinuate to the world, that they are not
fuffer'd to be publiſhed, becauſe unan-
swerable. I perfuade my felf this report
hath
3
( 19 )
hath but little foundation; and that
for this reaſon, becauſe fuch profecuti-
on cannot anſwer the end defigned; the
books being already well known, and
daily ſpreading into new hands; and be-
cauſe this would furnish the enemies of
revelation with too juft a pretence to
charge us with the remains of a perfecut-
ing ſpirit, and to reproach the very re-
ligion of Chrift it felf, as being in our
own apprehenfions uncapable of being
fupported but by civil profecutions and
penalties. God forbid they fhould have
any occaſion for fuch a charge. And tho'
the treatment of that reverend and learn-
ed Prelato, against whom the Literal
Schematift levels his reproaches, is un-
juft, and may be well thought to de-
ſerve a publick cenfure; yet cannot thoſe
reproaches be of any real differvice to
his Lordship's character, whofe defence of
Chriſtianity will rife in its value, in pro-
portion to his ill uſage upon account of
it. Thoſe reproaches will raiſe the in-
dignation of every honeft man that reads
them, and be deemed as brought in on-
ly to fill up thoſe pages, that the writer
knew not how to fill up with reaſon
and argument.
3. But
C 2
( 20 )
3. But after all, I am fufpicious, that
theſe zealous affertors of liberty have
ſomething elſe in view than merely to
defend their right of private judgment,
and publiſhing their opinions to the
world. Latet anguis in herba. They
would have the prefs open to every one,
fo would I. They would be allowed
to argue againſt Chriſtianity: I hope no
one will ever attempt to hinder them.
But this is not all they feem to want;
they would have a farther liberty to in-
fult, and revile, as well as argue againſt
Chriftianity. Let their own writings
judge for them or against them. Thus
the author of the Grounds fays, The
method of introducing Christianity into
the world, by building and grounding it
on the old testament, is agreeable to the
common method of introducing new reve-
lations, whether real or pretended. p. 21.
The miſſion of Mofes to the Ifraelites
Suppofed a former revelation from God.
Many of the religious rites of Moſes were
borrowed, or had agreement, particularly
with the religious rites of the Egypti-
ans. That Jofeph feems to have been
a most true member of, and convert to the
eftablished church of Egypt. The miffion
of
(21)
of Zoroafter to the Perfians fuppofed
the religion of the Magians. The miffion
of Mahomet fuppofed Chriftianity as that
did Judaiſm. And the Siamese and Brach-
mans pretend, that they have had a fuc-
ceffion of incarnate Deities amongst them,
who, at due diftances of time, have brought
new revelations from heaven, each fuc-
ceeding one depending on the former. p.
22, 23.
If theſe compariſons were any thing
to his argument, I fhould not have taken
notice of them. But he knows that the
queftion is not, how Chriftianity was
introduced; but what Chriftianity is,
and by what ſort of proofs it is ſupport-
ed; and therefore fuch compariſons can
be to no other purpoſe, but to give his
reader a contemptible view of it, that
he may be the eaſier pèrfuaded to come
into his new and furprising Scheme,
which is to clear all difficulties, and
therefore to be fure must be free from all
difficulty and objection it felf. Again,
p. 28, 29. ſpeaking of the Jewiſh pro-
phets, he tells us, That not only in the
most important affairs of government, but
in the difcovery of loft goods, and in tel-
ling fortunes, they fhew'd their divine in-
Spiration,
( 22 )
fpiration, and were paid for it by those who
confulted them either in victuals, or mo-
ney, or prefents. And again, p. 61. He
hath a moſt elegant and witty turn, The
Rabbin eſtabliſhes Christianity, and the
Devil Proteftantifm. And again, in order
to prove that ſome quotations out of the
old Teſtament, by the writers of the new,
are not arguments adapted to the Jews,
to convince them from their own prin-
ciples of the truth of Chriſtianity, he ob-
jects, p. 83. That allegory was much in
uſe amongst the Pagans. That religion
was deem'd a mysterious thing among ft
the Pagans, and not to be publickly and
plainly declared. That the works of Ho-
mer have furnished infinite materials for
allegorical commentators to work on, and
that there is yet extant (profound dif-
covery) a book exprefly treating of the
allegories of Homer, which he hath dif
covered from that antient writer Gale,
in his Opufcula Mythologica. That
the ancient Greek poets were reputed
to involve divine, and natural, and hif
torical notions of their Gods under myf
tical and parabolical expreffions, which
he learnedly proves from the authority
of Dodwell. That the Sybilline verſes,
the
(23)
the answers given from oracles, Sayings
delivered under agitations, and dreams (all
which the antients called divinations
by fury) were ſeldom or ever plain, and
ufually received fome allegorical inter-
pretation by the skilful in divination.
That the Pythagorean philofophy was
wholly delivered in mystical language, and
in this Pythagoras came up to Solomon's
character of wife men, and acted not
much unlike the most divine teacher that
ever was, our Saviour. That the Stoick
philofophers are particularly famous for
allegorifing the whole heathen theology,
and that we have ſeveral treatifes of
heathen philofophers on the fubject of al-
legorical interpretation, and the like, 84,
85, 86. And for all this he hath the
uncontroulable authorities of Dodwell,
Gale, Spencer, le Clerk, and father Simon.
Again, Scheme of Literal Prophecy,
If we open our eyes, and look into Pagan
or Chriftian ftories, we must confider the
greatest part thereof as fables and legends,
and may easily fee, that no folly is fo
great, no abfurdity is fo monftrous, and
no nonfenfe is fo exceffive, but whole na-
tions, under certain circumstances, are
capable of believing it, or at least of
Saying
(24)
faying they believe it. If certain perſons,
who have credit, fet any thing on foot
as matter of religion, and especially, if
it fuits any fuperftitious or factious pur-
pofe, the people run headlong into it,
and will not fuffer themſelves to be un-
deceived, p. 67. And again, in the Dif
courfe of the Grounds, p. 255, &c. He
afferts, That Chrift's prophecy about his
coming again, which he exprefly limits to
the lives of fome of his auditors, and to
the prefent generation, is wholly mystical.
That our Lord himself no less myftically
declared the time of his coming to reign,
when he ſaid to those who asked him
about it, that his reign fhould begin, cum
duo erunt unum, &c. That in like myf-
tical manner he prophesied of the state
of his kingdom, in the ampleft manner,
in the following paffage, The days fhall
come in which there shall be vines, which
fhall feverally have ten thousand branches,
and every of those branches shall have
ten thousand leffer branches, and every of
thefe branches ſhall have ten thousand
twigs, and theſe twigs ten thousand cluf-
ters of grapes, and in every clufter there
fhall be ten thouſand grapes, and every
grape fhall yield two hundred feventy five
gallons
( 25 )
gallons of wine, and when one shall take
hold of one of thofe facred branches, an-
other branch fhall cry out, I am a better
branch, take me, and bless the Lord by
me. Iomit, fays he, what our Lord adds of
every grain of wheat, and of apples, feeds
and herbs. Again, The gospel according to
the Egyptians, which was extant before
any of the four gofpels—was a goſpel ſuf-
ficiently mystical and allegorical, accord-
ing to the genius of the Egyptian nation.
p. 366. I am afraid I have quite tir'd
the reader's patience, by heaping together
fuch a number of ungrounded reproaches
and odious compariſons; but I muſt beg
his farther patience, by reprefenting the
fenfe and force of this fort of argument,
as made use of by theſe ſtrenuous aſſer-
ters of liberty, that the world may
know what fort of liberty it is they
plead for. And the argument ftands thus.
Chriftianity ſuppoſes the truth of Ju-
daifm, therefore 'twas introduced into
the world upon the foundation of the
Egyptian religion, and the miffion of
Chriſt was after the manner of the miſſion
of Zoroafter, Mahomet, and the Siamese
and Brachmans incarnate deities; that,
becauſe the Jews had prophets, they
D
were
(26)
were like gipfies and fortune-tellers; that
becauſe Surenbuyfius converfed with a
Rabbin, and Luther with the Devil, there-
fore the Rabbin eſtabliſhes Chriſtianity,
and the Devil Proteftantiſm. That be-
caufe there are fome difficulties in the
application of the old teftament pro-
phecies, they are upon the fame foot as
the works of Homer, the fictions of the
Greek poets, the Sibillyne verfes, the an-
fwer of Pagan oracles, and the like.
That becauſe Solomon and Chriſt ſpoke
in proverbial ſpeeches, therefore their
religion, or the proof of it, is like the Py-
thagorean myftical philofophy.
That
Chriſt's ſpeech about his coming again is
wholly myftical, and that therefore he him-
felf is guilty of a downright prevaricati-
on, in exprefly limiting it to the lives of
his auditors. That the dreams of IRE-
NÆUS, PAPIAS, and fome old men are
the myſtical prophecies of Chrift. That
the Pagan and Chriftian ſtory is the great-
eft part of it legend and fable. And lastly,
that spurious gofpels and epiftles, never
own'd by the chriftian church, or at leaſt
never come to our hands pure and ge
nuine, are older than the four goſpels,
and of confequence of better credit and
authority. See here, all ye unbelivers of
Chri-
1
( 27 )
Chriſtianity, the kind repreſentation given
of the religion of Jefus: What have ye
not to fear, ye advocates for the goſpel, if
your religion is thus built on fable, and
the founder of it is juftly chargeable with
fuch prevarication and nonſenſe, as our
author hath been pleaſed to put into his
mouth? If this be the real cafe men would
certainly be in the right to disbelieve
Chriſtianity, and I confefs I fhould mý
felf foon become one of that number.
But I apprehend and hope that our au-
thor hath not proved his charge, and made
it good. And therefore wherein do theſe
hafty affertions affect the credit of Chri-
ſtianity? Let the author of the Difcourfe
prove, if he can, the truth of one of the
forecited paffages, or honeftly own his
fault in theſe repreſentations: or let him
fhew that I have mifreprefented him, and
I'll as publickly ask his pardon as I have ac-
cuſed him. If I have not, he pleads for liber-
ty with an ill grace; for to heap together
charges without any foundation to ſupport
them, is not argument but invective ; this
is that inferior and indirect part of a con-
trovertit, that our author blames, and
ought therefore carefully to have avoided,
that his readers might not be induced to
D 2
think,
་
( 28 )
think, the rule was given for the uſe of
others, without any intention to obſerve
it himſelf. And tho' I defire nothing more
than that all the principles and grounds
of Chriſtianity may be fairly and openly
debated, yet I think the civil government
hath a right to protect every man from
being infulted on the fcore of his religi-
on, which is a degree of perfecution,
however contemptible that religion may
appear to thoſe who profefs not to be-
lieve it.
However, as the liberty they plead for,
is granted them, one would think they
fhould endeavour to render themſelves
worthy of it, by fhewing to the world
that they are, in the general at leaſt, fair
and candid adverfaries in their oppofition
to Chriſtianity, which hath fome fhadow
and appearance of proof, and contain
fome good and commendable things in
it. Now their impartiality and candor
will more abundantly appear by review-
ing the matters they infift on, and the
method they uſe in the preſent debate.
One never failing topick that they are
peculiarly fond of, and which adorns moſt
of their writings, is prieftcraft. 'Tis a
wonderful pleafing fubject to them, to
repre-
(29)
reprefent the folly, knavery and impof
ture of the priesthood, their love of
power, their defire of riches, the immo-
rality of their lives, and their ufurped
dominions over the conſciences of men.
That priests of all religions are the fame
is their darling maxim, and deemed by
màny as a full anſwer to every thing
that a prieſt can alledge. I fhall cite fome
paffages to this purpoſe. Thus the au-
thor of the Grounds, Pref. p. 12, 13. The
numerous clergy understand, and prac-
tife all the arts of perfuafion, and have
the common people, I mean the common
people as to understanding, devoted to
them; who can never want able men
amongst themselves, to say nothing of their
followers and dependants, either in the
way of banter or ſeriouſneſs, poetry and
profe, dialogue or difcourfe, declama-
tion or argument who have the fole
privilege of Speaking from the pulpits;
where, as Mr. Whiston obferves, they
may dogmatically affert, and earnestly
prefs, what they would hardly venture
at all to justify elſewhere, in any learned
converfation; or as Boileau expreſſes it,
C'est la que bien ou mal on a droit de
tout dire. Be it right or wrong they
have
3
( 30 )
#
*
have a privilege to ſay any thing. And
again, in his character of Mr. Whifton,
he tells us, he is the reverfe of most a
ther divines, whom, under a pretence of
exalting him, he paints out in the
blackeft colours. He thinks himself oblig-
ed in confcience to be dutiful, fubmiffive
and loyal to his Majesty, to whom he hath
fworn allegiance; and it is not a church
point with him, to act one way and pray
and fwear another, or not be in earnest
in those two most ferious and folemn acti-
ons. He speaks what he thinks, and
is not guilty of the contradiction of ma-
king the chriftian religion a matter of
great importance; and yet concealing his
thoughts about the particulars of that re-
ligion, any more than he is of profeſſing a re-
ligion which he doth not believe. He
pays no regard to fashionable doctrines,
nor to fashionable divines, who in obedi-
ence to one another, and in harmony vary,
change and regulate the faith of the
vulgar. He will not be bound by arti-
cles which he hath fubfcribed, but re-
nounce them when he judges them er-
roneous; nor will be fubfcribe articles
which he doth not believe true, or fub-
fcribe them in fenfes contrary to thefe de-
>
figned
( 31 )
2
figned by the impofers. And again, Scheme
of Literal Prophecy, p. 399, 400. No one
will doubt, 'but that his Lordship the Biſhop
would fooner part with his preferment, his
liberty, fortune and life, than with the noii-
ons he derives from his Jews and Rabbins.
But as for others, I very much question,
whether many of them would burn, or even
facrifice their preferment, or any enjoyments
of this world for the fake of opinions; and
whether, if the matter was laid before them,
as popery was before Cranmer, who had been
a burner of others for meer opinions, they
would not, most of them, fubfcribe to any
thing, to fave their lives and fortunes. Thus
moſt of our divines are reprefented as a for-
fworn, perjured and abandoned crew, as
trifling with: oaths and fubfcriptions, as
preaching one thing and believing another;
as profeffing a religion they deny the truth
of, as faſhioning their principles according
to the gout or caprice of the times, and
as ready to ſubſcribe any thing rather than
part with their livings and fortunes. Wretch-
ed circumſtances are we in, if this be the
caſe of most of the clergy! And can we
wonder that this fhould difguft others a-
gainſt Chriſtianity it felf? And what can
be a better argument, againft a wholſom
leffon of morals delivered from the pulpit,
I
than
(32)
than that 'tis delivered by a faſhionable di-
vine, i. e. by a wicked priest, who doth not
believe one word of what he fays? Admira-
ble remedy to quiet the conſcience of a
debauchee, and to make him eafy in his
vileft immoralities! If there be any either of
the eſtabliſhed or diffenting clergy to whom
this character in juſtice belongs, this author
hath clear'd them from being Chriſtians
and therefore I am apt to think them of
their religion, who either deny the being of
a God, and the obligations to fincerity and
honefty; or who keep their religion in pet-
to, and comply with the religious cuſtoms
of their country, to qualify themſelves for
places of honour and profit. But what is
there in all this to the argument, fuppofing
the whole was true? If the clergy are im-
moral, doth this prove any thing againſt the
religion they preach, unleſs it can be proved
that Chriſtianity countenances and ſupports
them in their vices? Our author hath done
Chriſtianity juſtice in this reſpect: So far is
he from charging it with any principles to
encourage the crimes he accufes the clergy
with, that he complains of it upon another
account. And therefore his reaſoning againſt
Chriſtianity would have been equally ftrong,
and appeared to much better advantage, had
the Satyr against the Clergy been entirely
left out.
I am
( 33 )
I am far from being an advocate for fuch
of them, as deferve the rebuke he hath
given them. I think an immoral vitious
clergyman of every fort is a fcandal to his
profeflion, and had it been their reforma-
tion only that our author had in view, I
ſhould have commended his deſign, and
heartily fallen in with it. But to introduce
the vices of the clergy into an argument a-
gainſt the truth of Chriſtianity, is to attack
it with weapons that will do little executi-
on, and gain but fmall reputation to him
that uſes them. Was any one of our Chri-
ftian writers, when arguing againſt the prin-
ciples of our modern Deifts, to repreſent
them as an abandoned, profligate, vitious
crew, as fwearing by God the author of
ſuch particular books, when at the ſame
time they believe nothing of the divine in-
ſpiration or authority of them, and as com-
plying with the religious rites and cuſtoms of
their country, which in their hearts they
deſpiſe, for ſome ſecular advantages; would
it not be justly asked, what is all this to
the purpoſe, if 'tis true, and what advantage
doth your cauſe gain by thus publickly de-
claiming againſt and expofing our faults?
I fhould condemn fuch advocates for Chri-
ftianty, as ufing very unfair and impertinent
methods to fupport it.
The
(34
( 34 )
The truth is, that principles are in them-
felves independent on the conduct of any
perfons whatſoever. If they are falfe, the
moſt unblamable conduct founded on them
cannot prove them true. If they are true,
the moſt inconfiftent behaviour of thoſe
who profeſs to believe them, cannot prove
them falfe. And therefore 'tis a mean
way of running down Chriftianity by
painting out the vices of the clergy, tho
they were as bad as our author reprefents
them to be. And if this fort of argument
be good, I will by the fame way of rea-
foning prove the truth of Chriſtianity. For
there are many amongst the clergy and laity
of all forts, who have formed themſelves
into the love of God and virtue; who have
learnt to be beneficent, juſt and true, who
are friends to the civil and religious liber
ties of men, by their belief and under the
influence of the Chriftian revelation. And
is not this an argument for the truth and
excellency of it, yea a much stronger-
one, than the vices of Chriftians can be
againſt it? Since to be vitious is a much
eaſier task, than to attain to thofe virtues
which are the great requirements of the
Chriſtian religion, and which our author
is pleaſed to call, to the honour of Chri-
tianity
( 35 )
ftianity, An evangelical righteousness, or
law of nature, which no man ever will, or
can perfectly practiſe. Literal Prophecy,
P. 416.
But I fhall leave the clergy, by their
own future conduct, to wipe off theſe
charges; and tho' the general charge is,
I doubt not, falfe, and invidious, yet
one would naturally expect, that the ar-
gument it ſelf about Chriftianity fhou'd
be fairly repreſented and managed. Let us
therefore go from perfons to things, and
ſee how they begin and carry on the
attack againſt it.
And here, inftead of producing impar-
tially the genuine principles, grounds and
reaſons of Chriſtianity, and honeftly ar-
guing against thefe, they fet up falfe prin-
ciples and reaſons, and miſrepreſent the
fenſe and meaning of the facred writers,
to wreft them to their own purpoſe;
and fo argue againſt and fhew the weak-
neſs of ſuch foundations, and then tri-
umph, as tho' they had gained an abſo-
lute victory over it, with a What would
I more? Thus the author of the Dif
courſe of the Grounds, p. 4. Chriftianity
is founded on Judaiſm, p. s. The Apof
tles ground and prove Christianity from
the old testament, p. 39. That theſe
E 2
proofs
(36)
proofs are typical or allegorical proofs, i. e.
either not to be found in the old testa-
ment, or not urged in the new, according
to the literal and obvious fenfe, which
they ſeem to bear in their fuppofed places
in the old, and therefore not proofs ac-
cording to fcholaftick rules, p. 40. That
therefore almost all Chriſtian comment a-
tors on the bible, and advocates for the
chriftian religion, both antient and mo-
dern, have judged them to be applied in
a fecondary, or typical, or mystical, or al-
legorical, or enigmatical fenfe, i. e. in a
fenſe different from the obvious and lite-
ral fenfe, which they bear in the old tefta-
ment, p. 48. That the prophecies cited
from the old testament by the author of
the new, do ſo plainly relate, in their ob-
vious and primary fenfe, to other matters,
than those which they are produced to
prove; that to pretend they prove in that
fenfe, what they are produced to prove, is
to give up the the caufe of Christianity
to Jews, and other enemies thereof; who
can fo easily fhew, in fo many undoubted
inftances the old and new teftament, to
have no manner of connection in this re-
Spect, but to be in an irreconcileable ftate,
P. 53. That the learned Syrenhuyfius has
made
2
(37)
made an ample difcovery to the world of
the rules, by which the Apostles cited
the old testament, and argued from thence,
in a treatise, wherein the whole myſtery
of the Apostles applying ſcripture in a
fecondary, or typical, or mystical, or alle-
gorical fenfe feems unfolded, p. 59. That
the method confifts in altering points,
changing letters, changing letters and
points, adding or taking away letters,
tranfpofing words and letters, dividing
one word into two, adding words, chang-
ing their order, &c. p. 60. By this lucky
accident are the rules, by which the A-
poftles cited and applied the old testa-
ment difcovered to the world. Ibid. And
nothing can be plainer than that the
Apoftles, who manifeftly argued not by
fcholaftick rules, and interpreted not the
paffages they cited out of the old testa-
ment according to the obvious and lite-
ral fenfe they bore therein, did proceed by
fuch rules as are ſet forth by him (Syren-
huyfius) p. 78. And once more, Chrifti-
anity is wholly revealed in the old tefta-
ment, and hath its divine authority from
thence; that it is not literally, but myfti-
cally or allegorically revealed therein
and that therefore Christianity is the al-
>
legorical
( 38 )
legorical fenfe of the old testament, and is
not improperly called myftical Judaiſm, i.c.
'Tis Judaiſm and 'tis not, 'tis fomewhere
no where, ſomewhat nothing but a mere
bite and impofture; for he tells us, p.
26. That if theſe proofs are valid, Chri-
Stianity is invincibly eſtabliſhed on its true
foundation; and that p. 31. If thofe proofs
are invalid, then is Christianity falfe; for
that none of the miracles, faid to be wrought
by Jefus and his Apostles in behalf of
Christianity, can avail any thing in the
cafe, Ibid. Now this reprefentation,
ftrip'd of its diſguiſe, ſtands thus. That
Chriſt and his Apoftles ground Chriftia-
nity on the falſe ſenſe of the old tefta-
ment; that they play'd tricks in apply-
ing the prophecies of the old teftament
to events under the new; that either
they did no miracles, or if they did, they
are no proofs of the truth of Chriſtianity;
and that therefore he and they were
cheats, and their religion an impofture.
And that he may have fome pretence
from the authority of the facred writers,
he introduces them, as reaſoning after
this rate. Thus he ſays of St. Paul,
that he reaſons in this divine manner,
when he aſſerts himself and others to be
minifters
( 39 )
minifters of the new teftament, as being
minifters not of the letter, but of the fpi-
rit of the law, i. e. as he fays, of the old
teftament fpiritually understood. 2 Cor.
iii. 6. p. 12. And again, p. 92. he ſays,
that St. Paul, 1 Cor. i. and ii. Chapters,
feems to difclaim all other methods of
arguing befides the allegorical, when he
fays, that the wisdom he spoke was wif
dom amongst them that were perfect, i. c.
amongst them who understood the Secret
myftical and Spiritual fenfe of things.
And to add no more, he introduces Pe-
ter as preferring this argument from the
myftical fenfe of prophecy, to the mira-
culous atteftation, whereof he himſelf
and two other Apoftles were witneſſes,
given by God himſelf to the miſſion of
Jefus Chrift, p. 27.
Adeon' te effe incogitantem?
I would appeal to any honeſt and
unbyaſſed perſon, that hath ever read
the new teftament, whether this be a
fair and impartial repreſentation of the
grounds of Chriftianity, or the ſenſe of
the Apoftles. Where do they ever found
Chriſtianity on the old teftament? If
they do appeal to the Jewish prophecies,
to fhew that they foretold fuch and fuch
things fhould happen to the Meffiah, do
they
( 40 )
they endeavour to prove from hence,
that theſe things did happen to Chrift?
The actions of his life, and the circum-
ftances of his death, and the preaching of
his goſpel to the Gentiles were fuppof-
ed as real facts, and the prophecies are
cited to fhew, that theſe things are ſo far
from being contrary to them, that they are
the very circumftances foretold by them;
fo that Chriſtianity is fupported by facts,
and founded on real facts, the truth or
falfhood of which doth not depend on
old teftament prophecies. The only
queftion as to prophecy is, whether the
Jewish writings did ſpeak of a Meſſiah,
and whether the things relating to him
do agree to the pretenfions and character
of Chrift. And the only reaſon why
Chrift and his Apoftles appeal to the old
teftament is, to fhew that they actually
did. And for this they appeal to the
literal fenfe, as often as they make quo-
tations with this view, and not to the al-
legorical myftical fenfe: Thus Chrift fays,
that the prophets have spoken, i. e. declar-
ed plainly and exprefly that Chriſt ought
to fuffer and enter into glory. Luke xxiv.
25, 26. And again, That all things must
be fulfilled which were written in the law
of
( )
41)
2
41 Now
of Mofes, and in the prophets and in the
pfalms, concerning me, ver. 44.
would any one, but fuch a fashionable
gentleman as our author, fupply this
plain expreffion, which was written,
with theſe fine words, myftically, typi-
cally, allegorically, and the like? His bufi-
nefs is to fhew that they were not writ-
ten, or if they are, that the character of
Chriſt did not agree to them.
And as they do not argue from the
typical fenfe of prophecies, no nor from
any prophecies at all to prove the truth
of facts, ſo they do not found Chriſtia-
nity wholly on prophecies, but appeal to
other proofs of their divine miffion and
authority. Our author affirms, that
Chriſt's and his Apoftles miracles cannot
avail any thing in the cafe, i. e. are no
juſt foundation on which Chriſtianity is
fupported, p. 31. Now Chrift and his
Apoſtles fay quite the contrary. Chrift
ſays, The works, which the Father hath
given me to finiſh, the fame works that
I do, bear witness of me, that the Father
bath fent me. John v. 36. and his Apo-
ftles exprefly fay, That Jefus of Naza-
reth was a man approved of God by mi-
racles and wonders and figns, which God
F
did
( 42 )
did by him in the midst of you, as ye your
felves alfo know, Acts ii. 22. And St. Paul
affirms, he was declared to be the Son of
God, ev duvapa by the power of miracles, by
the fpirit of holiness, manifefted in his
life and doctrines, and by his refurrecti-
on from the dead. Rom. i. 4. Here is not
one word of prophecy, much less typi-
cal prophecy; but Chriftianity is faid to be
fupported on this threefold foundation,
Chrift's miracles, holiness, and refurrection
from the dead. Now who must be believ-
ed, Chriſt and his Apoftles, or the author
of the Grounds? who beft underſtood the
real foundations of Chriſtianity, they who
delivered it, or he who endeavours to
fubvert it, and writes with all the figns
of a prejudiced mind, againſt it? Mira-
cles indeed will not prove a falfe inter-
pretation to be true; nor did Chrift or
his Apoftles ever work miracles for fuch
an end. But yet miracles will give ſuch
an authority to him that doth them, as
will be a fufficient reafon to receive his
interpretation of an antient prophecy, if
fuch an interpretation, when given, a-
grees with the true fenfe of the words, be
correſpondent with,and agreeable to other
plainer prophecies, and when there is
an
( 43 )
an agreement of real facts to anſwer
thoſe particular events, to which fuch
prophecy is faid to refer. Such an inter-
pretation being agreeable to the literal
fenſe proves it may be true, and being
given by one, proved to be a teacher
from God, fhews that it actually is.
But how ſhall we juftify the Apoſtles,
who, according to our author, plead for
the allegorical fenfe? Doth not St. Paul
fay, that God made the Apoftles minifters
of the new testament, not of the letter, but
of the Spirit of the law? This our au-
thor roundly affirms with his uſual mo-
defty, and regard to truth, p. 12. tho'
it be abfolutely repugnant to the ex-
prefs words and meaning of the text. He
doth indeed fay that they were minifters
of the new teftament, i. c. of a new dif
penſation a yeaμpatos not of the letter,
i. e. not of the law, not of a difpenfation
like to that which they had in the written
law, adλa πveuµatos, but of the Spirit, i. e.
of a difpenfation confirm'd by the works
of the Spirit, and which requires inward
ſpiritual purity, and not merely exter
a St. Paul elſewhere deſcribes the law under the title
of apapun. See Rom. ii. 27, 29. vii. 6.
F 23
nal
( 44 )
nal obfervances.
dent from the context, than that the A-
poſtle oppoſes the law and the gospel,
the one as a miniftration of death, the
other of life; the one as a mere dead
letter, which confifted in ordinances
that could not give life; the other as
the miniftration of the Spirit, confirmed
by his works, and ſupported by his in-
fluences. See ver. 3, 7, 8, 9. So that he
afferts the direct contrary to what our
author would palm upon us for his
meaning, who hath added the words of
the law out of his own brain, to make
the Apoſtle ſpeak palpable nonfenfe and
a plain contradiction. The other paf
fage I have abundantly cleared elſewhere;
and ſhall therefore only take notice of his
repreſentation of St. Peter 2 epift. i.
19. which is with his ufual accuracy and
judgment. He ſays, St. Peter prefers
the argument drawn from prophecy to
the miraculous atteftation, whereof he
himſelf and two other Apoftles were wit-
neffes, given by God himself to the mif-
fion of Chrift. And then adds, his (Peter's)
argument feems as follows. Laying this
foundation, that as prophecy proceeds from
the holy Ghoft, it is a stronger argument
than
Nothing is more evi-
H
( 45 )
CεCOLOTE
than a miracle, which depends upon ex-
ternal evidence and teftimony. But now
fuppofing this is not Peter's argument,
but our author's miſtake of it, ſuppoſing
Peter did not prefer the prophecies of
the old teftament, to the voice of God;
yea ſuppoſe he doth not ſpeak one word
of the old teftament, but only the new,
why then our author will feem to be
wrong in his interpretation; he will be
the negligent reader, and not Peter the
weak and impertinent writer. Judge of
the words. St. Peter ſays, exoμev
gov λoyov. We have receiv'd the word of
prophecy, i. e. we Apoftles have, as the
prophets of Chrift, receiv'd the goſpel we
preach to you under the infpiration of
the Spirit; which is therefore λogos Ge-
Calorepos a furer word, a word that you
may be more certain of the truth of,
than you can poffibly be of the voice
from heaven, which neither you nor any
other heard, befides we which were with
Chrift in the mount; becauſe the gifts
of the Spirit that we have and confer, to
which you are all witneffes, are the plain-
eft proofs of our inſpiration, and there-
fore of the truth of what we fay.
λως ποιείτε προσεχοντες, in adhering to
which
4
na-
( 46 )
which ye do well, as to a light shining
in a dark place, until the day dawn, and
the day star arife in your heart. i. e.
Your adhering to our doctrine, which
we are taught by the holy Ghost, will be
abundantly fufficient to direct and pre-
ſerve you in all chriftian practices, fee
ver. 5, &c. amidst all the damnable he-
refies that ſhall be privily brought in, fee
chap. ii. till the day dawn, &c. i. e. till you
your felves fhall be fo abundantly enlight-
ned in the knowledge of Chrift and his
gofpel,as that you fhall have need of no far-
ther inftructions after my deceaſe; ſee ver.
12, 13. but walk as fafely amidſt the moſt
dangerous herefies, as perfons do, who,
after a dark night, fee the dawn of day,
or the morning ftar to enlighten and
guide them. And that you ought to ad-
here to our inſpired doctrine is evident
from the nature and defign of all pro-
phecy; becauſe no prophecy of ſcripture
can be fuppofed to be dias eiuσews of pri-
vate interpretation, i, e. can't be thought to
carry in it a meaning, or to be expound-
ed in a manner perſonal, or peculiar to
Idov pesolace is a man's own hired houſe, Aɛts xxviii.
poles modos a man's own reward, 1 Cor. iii. 8. & alib.
зон
the
(47)
the perfon himſelf to whom the prophe
cy is vouchſafed. For as the prophecies of
antient times were not brought by the will
of any particular man, but as all thofe
holy perfons fpake as they were mov'd by
the holy Ghoft; fo we may juftly conclude
they were deliver❜d for publick uſe, and
ought to be regarded and obeyed by all,
as the proper declaration of the will of
God by them. This appears to me to
be the real meaning of this diſputed paf-
fage. I will not answer for it that I am
throughout in the right. Thus much
however ſeems plain, that the doyos πgo-
OnTixos was ſomewhat that the Apoſtles
as fuch had received, and that he ſpeaks
of it as different from the ποε προφητεια
the antient prophecy; and that there-
fore he cannot, as our author would
make him, affert that Jewish prophecies
were a better foundation of faith, than
the voice he heard from the excellent
glory. This was indeed fufficient for
his own confirmation, but not for that
of others, who having never heard it,
might queftion the truth of the report;
and therefore they received the #gonTixos
Aoyos, which to others was a much fu-
rer proof, and liable to no reaſonable
objection,
( 48 )
objection. Or if by the furer word of
prophecy fhould be meant, the Jewish
prophecies, yet how will our author
prove that St. Peter meant the allego-
rical ſenſe of thoſe prophecies, in oppo-
fition to the literal? If he meant the
literal, as he certainly did, his affertion
will ftill be true, that the literal pro-
phecies of the Meffiah accompliſhed in
Chriſt, will be a ſtronger proof of the
truth of his miffion, to a perſon that
underſtands the prophecies, and diſcerns
the accompliſhment, than the report of
a voice from heaven, that he never actu-
ally heard.
Thus have we ſeen our author's charge
againſt Chriſt and his Apoſtles for their
quoting fcripture in an allegorical ſenſe.
One would furely imagine that he would
be a strict anteallegorical Karaite himſelf,
and never depart from the literal ſenſe
in his own interpretations. But even here
he flips from us, and is inconſtant to him-
felf: he as well as any one can explain
away the letter when the letter is againſt
him, and make one man to fignifie ma-
ny men, and even a fucceffion of men,
when 'tis neceffary to weaken the foun-
dations of Chriftianity.
Perfect my-
Stift
(49)
+
ftift, and difciple of Surenbuyfius, who can
thus add other words to thoſe that are in
the text, in order to make the ſenſe more
clear, and to accommodate it to the fub-
ject matter he is upon. See Surenbuyfius
ſeventh rule, in our author, p. 60. There
are ſome texts in the old teſtament, that
in the literal, firft and plaineft ſenſe, do
agree to our Saviour, and indeed to no
one elſe, that we have ever had any ac-
count of; and tho' it may be difficult
for us to account for the fenfe of fome
prophecies applied to Chrift, it will be
as difficult for our enemies to explain
theſe other away, and to fhew that they
do not relate to, and were not fulfilled in
him. One is that of Mofes, Deut. xviii.
15. 18. A prophet will the Lord God
raife up unto thee like unto me, to him
Shall ye hearken.
See now how acute
our author's interpretation is, by the add-
ing a few words according to myſtick
rules: Theſe words, fays he, imply, an
establishment of an order, and fucceffion
of prophets in analogy to the heathen di-
viners. A prophet is a fucceffion and
order of prophets. To him shall ye
hearken,fignifies, in analogy to the heathen
diviners, as I fuppofe, or otherwiſe theſe
G
laft
(50)
laft words can never be made out; the
fingular number ſtands for the plural, and
a prophet for prophets. Literal Pro-
phecy, pag. 236. Now this being not
the fenfe according to fcholaftick rules,
Some of the words not being to be found
in the text, or not urged according to
their literal and obvious fenfe, which
they bear in the old, I therefore judge
them to be applied, in a fecondary or enig-
matical ſenſe, i. e. in a fenfe different
from the obvious and literal fenfe, which
they bear in the old teftament. Or if
a fucceffion of prophets be intended, it
can be only fecondarily, viz. that God
would raiſe them up prophets, till this
one ſhould come. 'Tis one prophet is
ſpoken of, and therefore primarily intend-
ed; and by explaining it of many pro-
phets, he uſes himſelf the very method
he condemns in Chrift and his Apoftles.
Again, Literal Prophecy, p. 12. when
it is affirmed, Gen. xxii. 18. of Abraham's
feed, that in it all nations of the
earth shall be bleſſed, he ſays it is meant,
that the Ifraelites fhould be fo bleſſed, or
made fo remarkably happy and fuccessful
in their affairs by God, that when men
bleſſed one another, they should use this,
or
( 51 )
or fuch like form of bleſſing, God bless
you, as he did the Ifraelites or feed of
Abraham. This appears to be the true fenfe
of the phrafe from its ufe everywhere. Ian-
fwer, that this meaning is not the literal
meaning of that promiſe to Abraham,
nor the conſtant fenfe of the expreffion.
The literal meaning of the words, In
thy feed fhall all nations of the earth
be bleffed, is, that all nations fhould re-
ceive fome bleffing from Abraham's feed.
To be bleffed of God, is to receive fome
actual bleffing from God, and to be pro-
phetically bleffed, is to be prophetically af
fured of ſome ſpecial bleffing from God.
Thus Jacob bleffed Ephraim and Manaffeh.
What that blefling was we have an ac-
count Gen. xlviii. 15,20. that they
fhould become a multitude of nations, and
fhould be fo remarkable on this account,
that in thee ſhall Iſrael bless, or wiſh
proſperity to others in theſe words, God
make thee as Ephraim and Manaffeh. So
that Jacob's bleffing Ephraim and Ma-
naffeh was his predicting and afſuring
them of a remarkable profperity from God.
And therefore when God affured Abra-
ham, that in his feed all the nations of
the earth ſhould be bleſſed, the literal and
obvious
G
(52)
obvious meaning is, that fome way or
other his feed fhould be the occafion of
real bleffednefs to all nations. And 'tis
obfervable, that in two of the three places
where this paffage, In thy feed, &c. oc-
curs, the verb is paffive, in Niphal, 1973
viz. Gen. xii. 3. and xviii. 18. and the
other in Hithpahel, which oftentimes
bears a paffive fenfe. And that it bears.
a paffive ſenſe Gen. xxii. 18. which is
the third place, is almoſt evident to a de-
monftration, from a parallel text, which I
think to be a comment on this, viz, Pfal.
1xxii. 17. where the pfalmift ſpeaking of
Solomon, or the Meffiah, amongſt other
things fays, His name fhall endure for
ever—and men 11 fhall be blef-
fed in him, viz. upon
upon account of
the vaft advantages they fhould en-
joy under his reign, as deſcribed before.
Whereas the other place, Gen. xlviii. 30.
quoted as parallel to this, is entirely
in thee ball Ifracl בך יברך ישראל active
bless. Befides this very form of ſpeech,
to blefs one's felf in a perſon, doth not
always mean, to wifh one's felf as happy
as another. See for this Jerem. iv. 2.
And thou shalt fwear, the Lord liveth
in truth, in judgment, and in righteouf
ness
2,
(53)
nefs, and the nations shall bless them-
feves in him. And again, Iſaiah lxv. 16.
He who bleeth himself in the earth,
ſhall bless himself in the God of truth.
The words are in Hithpahel; and can-
not denote ſurely they fhould wiſh them-
felves as bleſſed as God; but that they
who wished themselves bleffed, should
wish to be actually bleſſed of God. So
that if Chriſtians have laid most mighty
Stress upon this text, it is not upon the
moft palpable mistaken meaning of this
text; which text, for all our author's
borrowed criticiſm from Hammond, is
able to bear the ftrefs that is laid upon.
it, and remains a literal prophecy of
the Meffiah.
Another inftance may be produced out
of Ifaiah liii. where the prophet repre-
fents a perfon as in a ſtate of great
mifery and contempt, as wounded for
the tranfgreffions of the people, as taken
from prifon and judgment, as cut off
out of the land of the living, and as ma-
king his grave with the wicked. And
yet of this very perfon 'tis declared, that
at the time when he made his foul an of
fering for fin, he should fee his feed, he should
prolong his days, and the pleasure of the
Lord
(54)
Lord ſhall profper in his hand. Produce
now but the man to whom theſe things
literally, and in the fenfe they bear in
the old teſtament agree, but Jefus Chriſt.
Let any one try if he can, without
myftical, typical, allegorical interpreta-
tions, make them fuit the character and
circumſtances of Ifaiah, Jeremiah, Ne-
hemiah, or any other perfon amongſt
the Jews, but the Chriftian Meffiah;
a prophecy ſo plain, that the Jews them-
felves applied it to the Chrift, and in-
deed can be applied to no one elſe. Nor
hath Grotius, nor our myftick author,
with all his twifting and turning, proved
that they agree to any other perfon.
Another ftrong paffage you meet with is
in this fame prophet, chap. 1x. where
the calling of the Gentiles is declared in
the plaineft words, which I leave to our
author's farther confideration, and my-
ftical paraphraſe and notes. Theſe, and
the like that may be produced, are glo-
rious teftimonies in favour of Chriftiani-
ty, which are not to be fubdued by the
later teftimonies of Grotius, Marfbam,
and Dodwell. And thus hath he not taken
from the Biſhop the moft confiderable
of his Jews? And what would his Lord-
fhip more ?
But
(55)
But I do not wonder that men ſhould
thus be inconfiftent with themfelves,
when they have a cauſe to ſerve, which
they are refolved at all hazards to fup-
port. I have already fhewn how the
writings of the Apoſtles have been mif
repreſented by our author; I will not
ſay with defign, but chufe rather to im-
pute it to another caufe, which I will
not mention. But to be ſure he hath
been more exact and careful as to the
other authors he hath cited from. No
one that hath read the Diſcourſe of the
Grounds, and the Vindication of it, can
help obferving, how he abounds in the
authorities of learned authors, and with
what a pomp of citations he hath adorn-
ed his pages. Cicero, Juvenal, Auſtin,
Justin Martyr, and other great names
are called in, to fupport his argument,
and fhew the profoundneſs of his own
learning. Not to mention Grotius, Mar-
Sham, Spencer, Whifton, P. Simon, Dod-
well, and other modern writers. This
is to prejudice the reader in favour of
our author, who thus brings in the re-
cords of antiquity to his aid, and ap-
pears fo well verfed in the books of
the moſt learned men in the laſt and
prefent
(56)
prefent ages. But whether he doth fo
well underſtand either the antient or
modern authors he quotes, I am in fome
doubt.
He tells us, p. 85. That the Sybilline
verfes, the answers given at oracles,
Savings delivered under agitations, and
dreams, all which he adds in a paren-
thefis, the antients called divinations
by fury, were feldom or ever plain. Be
it ſo that they were not. How doth he
prove that verfes, oraclés, agitations, and
dreams, were called by the antients,
divinations by fury? For this he cites
Cicero de divinatione. Let us confult
Cicero, and if I underſtand him, hé af-
ferts downright the contrary. The paf
fage he refers to is, as I ſuppoſe, De di
vinat. l. 1. in init. which I fhall tran-
fcribe at large. Verfari quandam inter
homines divinationem, quam Græci
Tixlu appellant; i. e. præfentionem &
fcientiam rerum futurarum.
Huic
præftantiffimæ rei nomen noftri a diviss
Græci, ut Plató interprétatur, a furore
duxerunt. So that his argument ſtands
thus. Becauſe the greek word for the
knowledge of future events is deriv'd
from a word that fignifies fury, and the
Latin
4
μay-
( 57 )
Latin word that expreffes the fame fores
knowledge is derived a divis, therefore
the antients called oracles, dreams, &c.
divinations by fury, i. e. Either the Greeks
called them javTinn divinatio, or the
Latins called them divinatio pavτinn.
Which obſervation is ſo exactly critical
and vaftly curious, that I fhall leave him
in entire poffeffion of it, and not diſcover
ſo much want of judgment as to argue
againſt it. I fhall only confult Cicero's
own opinion, and we find that he ex-
prefly diftinguifhes between the divinatio
per fomnium, and that per furorem. Thus
de divin. lib. 1. in init. Et cum duobus
modis animi fine ratione & fcientia motu
ipfi fuo, foluto & libero incitarentur; uno
furente, altero fomniante; furoris divinati-
onem fybillinis maxime verfibus contineri
arbitrati. - prese Nec vero fomnia gra-
viora, fi quæ ad rempublicam pertinere
vifa funt, a fummo confilio neglecta funt.
And agreeable to this diftinction he
ſpeaks elſewhere. fect. 18. ibid. Iis igi-
tur affentior, qui duo genera divinati-
onum effe dixerunt : unum, quod particeps
effet artis; alterum quod arte careret.
Carent autem arte ii, qui.
citatione quadam animi, aut foluto libe-
H
roque
m con-
(58)
roque motu futura præfentiunt; quod &
fomniantibus fæpe contingit, & nonnun-
quam vaticinantibus per furorem. And
he defcribes both the one and the other
kind of divination. ibid, fect. 30, 31.
The divination by dream, is, cum fomno
eft fevocatus animus a focietate & con-
tagione corporis jacet enim corpus
dormientis, ut mortui. The other fort
he thus deſcribes. Ineft igitur in ani-
mis præfagitio extrinfecus injecta, atq;
inclufa divinitus. Ea, fi exarfit acrius,
furor appellatur, cum a corpore animus
abftractus, divino instinctu concitatur.
See alſo fect. 50, 51. And to mention
no more . 2. he exprefly diſtinguiſhes
theſe two kinds in theſe words, Ifta duo
furoris & fomnii, and then adds, dicam
igitur de iftis ipfis duobus generibus mi-
hi quid videatur. fect. 48. Can any
thing be more evident than that Cicero di-
ftinguiſhes the divinatio per fomnium from
the divinatio furoris ? When a perſon
is afleep, and his body is jacens & pene
mortuum, as ſtill and quiet as a body al-
moſt dead, is he in a fury? What a
ftrange fort of myftical interpretation
muſt it be, that can make theſe things
agree? Surely our author went from
j i
the
(59)
the letter of his text, when he cited this
paffage of Cicero, to prove a man in
a deep sleep, and with a body as ftill as
if it were dead, to be in a fury.
And as he hath miſtaken Cicero in this
reſpect, ſo neither doth he ſeem to have
underſtood his meaning in the divinatio
furoris, which he elegantly tranflates di-
vination by fury, this English word by no
means anſwering to the Latin furor. To
be in a fury hath amongſt us a bad mean-
ing, and fignifies rage, paſſion and mad-
nefs; whereas Cicero ufes it in a quite
different ſenſe, as he explains himſelf
De div. l. 1. sect. 3. and means no
more than a certain emotion excited in
the foul, abftracted from the body, by a
divine inftinct. And this furor, he tells us,
Democritus and Plato afferted to be
neceffary to poèts and orators, without
which there could be no juft pleading, or
fuitable action, nothing strong, folid and
copious, Seefect. 37. And tho' Cicero him-
felf, who ſeems to have been an unbe-
liever in all forts of divination, inter-
prets furens by infaniens, and demens, yet
this cannot alter the genuine fenfe of
the word; nor its general acceptation
and uſe, much leſs its conftant uſe, when
applied to divination. Thus our author
H 2
hath
(60)
hath egregiouſly blundred in this whole
quotation of Cicero, and either under-
ſtood not what he read, or was in a
dream when he cited it, or cited it per
furorem, the better to countenance a
fneer upon the antient prophets.
Nor hath he much better luck, in his
quotation out of Juvenal, to prove that
a lyar and a Jew fignified the fame thing
P. 104. Juvenal fays nothing like it;
but only,
९
Qualiacunque voles Judæi fomnia vendunt.
Sat. 6. p. 547.
He reckons them among the Egypti-
ans, Armenians, Syrians, Caldeans, and
others, and ridicules them as a beggarly
fuperftitious crew, who got a vile lively-
hood by telling fortunes, by promifing
fweethearts, good legacies, and the like.
Theſe acute and critical obſervations of
our author, would make one naturally
wiſh that he would publiſh fome new edi-
tions of the antient clafficks, and bless the
world with his curious obfervations and
notes on them.
As to the modern authors he hath
quoted, he is no leſs unhappy than in the
others. He cites Selden de fined. 1. 1.
५. 8,
( 61 )
e. 8. as affirming, that the new law of
Christ was not properly a new law, but
Fudaifm explained and fet in a new light.
Now though Selden in many places of
this chapter calls Chriſtianity, Judaiſmus
reformatus & verus, yet nothing was
more foreign to his meaning than that
Chriſtianity and Judaifm were the fame
thing. For in this chapter he calls them
exprefly duo genera, and explains his own
meaning, in theſe very words, p. 121.
Judaifmus vere reformatus, feu cum fide
in Meffiam feu Chriftum rite conjunctus.
Chriſtianity was Judaifm reformed and
true, as it implied a belief of, and obe-
dience to that Meffiah, which the Jew-
ifh writings promifed. But how come
verus & reformatus to fignifie explained
and fet in a due light? Or becauſe the
Jewish prophets promiſed a Meffiah,
doth it therefore follow from Selden,
that the Meffiah's law was not a new
law, but Judaifm explained and ſet in
a due light? This is a ftrange perverfi-
on of Selden's fenfe and meaning, and
which no careful reader could have been
guilty of. I hope in his next perform-
ance he will read through his quotations
before he publiſhes them, and ſave him-
felf the fhame of being rebuked for ſuch
blunders,
३.
(62)
blunders, and his adverfaries the trouble
of correcting them.
I ſhould not have mentioned my own
name in this place, was it not for a re-
markably falſe repreſentation of a paffage
in my Vindication. He fays, that as to
Some of the prophecies cited and applied in
the new teftament, I own, that the Apo-
ftles have put a falſe fenfe on them, and
that I juftify their proceeding. Scheme
of Lit. Prop. p. 211. which account is
fo wholly and abfolutely inconfiftent
with the deſign and occafion of that
chapter, from whence the quotation is
taken, that there needs no particular con-
futation of it, to any one that hath eyes
to fee, and a common meaſure of un-
derſtanding. He will therefore not take it
amifs if I conclude this remark, with his
own paffage from Juvenal, which he is
welcome to apply in his own ſenſe.
Qualiacunque voles fomnia vendit.
But to do him juftice, he is ſometimes
in the right too, and hath hit upon his
author's meaning. When he finds him-
felf pinch'd with an argument, in order
to divert his reader's attention, and fur-
niſh his own diſciples with matter to be
witty and pleaſant, he heaps together a-
bundance
(63)
bundance of pretty ſayings, and acute ob:
ſervations, from authors, who have mixed
ſomething trifling and weak in their de-
fences of Chriſtianity, or expofitions of
the facred writings. Thus p. 7. He tells
us, that our learned Mede hath endea-
vour'd to point out thofe very fcriptures
which our Saviour expounded to his dif
ciples. Luke xxiv. 25, 27. and p. 19.
The famous Jurieu puts in order thofe
things, which the holy Ghost had placed
in diforder. And p. 25. An eminent divine
thinks he can, with great probability, ſet-
tle the precife time when the chriftian
covenant began. That Adam was creat-
ed on the fixth day at nine in the morn-
ing, that he fell about noon, that being
the time of eating, and that Chrift was
promiſed about three a clock in the after-
noon. And again, p. 87. Many of the pri
mitive fathers and apologifts for Chrifti-
anity, who for the most part wholly ad-
dress themselves to Pagans, reafon alle-
gorically ▪from_natural and artificial
things; proving, that Chrift was to fuffer
on the cross from things made after the
fashion of a cross; that there must be four
gofpels, and no more, from the four winds
and four corners of the earth; and that
Chriſt
(64)
Christ was to have twelve Apostles, be-
cauſe the gospel was to be preached in four
parts of the world, in the name of the
Trinity, three times four making twelve;
and because there were twelve bells
hung at the bottom of the Jewish high
Prieft's garments. See more of this ſtuff,
P. 115, 116, 117, &c.
I will very freely allow to our author,
that theſe things are as ridiculous and tri-
fling as he pleaſes, and that they rather tend
to expoſe the writer, than to ſerve Chriſti-
anity. But is it not as trifling in him to al-
ledge them, eſpecially to alledge them as
parallel with the quotations of Chrift and
his Apoſtles out of the old teftament; and
to paſs by all that is ſolid and fubſtantial in
their writings? Have the antient apologiſts
and the modern commentators nothing
of real argument? If they have, he ought
rather to have attacked them in their
ſtrongeſt parts, and folidly refuted them
in theſe, if he would have acted the part
of a fair and brave adverfary, than thus
repreſented them in a ridiculous light,
in order to prejudice others ftom reading
them, or from a due regard to their
ftronger arguments and proofs in favour
of Chriſtianity. But have the writers a-
gainſt
(65)
againſt Chriſtianity nothing of this kind
that can be objected against them? Is
every thing they have alledged quoted
allegoriſed infinuated, pertinent true
and argumentative? Can there be any
thing that more juſtly expoſes a writer
to cenfure and ridicule, than to bring
thoſe very trifles he derides in others,
as arguments in favour of his own hypo-
thefis? To quote Latin that he doth not
underſtand, or hath never read, or en-
tirely forgot? Or in the room of argu-
ments to bring authorities, when the
thing in debate is not to be prov'd by
authorities but arguments?
+
This is a very common method that
the adverfaries to revelation make ufe of,
viz. to fhelter their opinions under the
name of fome great author, and to bring
the affertions and authorities of others
in the room of real and ſubſtantial argu-
ments, without fhewing that they them-
ſelves have proved their affertions. Thus
the author of the Scheme of Literal Pro-
phecy affures us, That to engage the read-
er to the greater attention, and to induce
him to give things their due weight, he
urges them in the words of the greatest
divines, without whom he scarce prefumes
I
to
( 66 )
to stir a ſtep, preface, p. 8. Out of in-
numerable inftances that might be brought
I ſhall ſelect fome few. Thus in order
to prove that the old teftament is the on-
ly canon of ſcriptures to Chriftians, he
tells us, That the books of the new tefta-
ment are all occafional books, as Mr.
Whifton hath clearly fhewn, and not a
digeft or fyftem of laws for the govern-
ing the church, according to Dr. Hare,
p. 14. Again, when he interprets thoſe
words, A prophet fhall the Lord &c. to
imply an eſtabliſhment of an order of
prophets, contrary to the literal fenfe,
he mentions Dodwell and Stilling fleet,
p. 28. And to make good his affertion,
that all prophecies cited by the Apoſtles
are fulfilled only in a fecondary, typical
&c. fenfe, he not only brings in him-
felf as a voucher, whofe authority, to be
fure, will weigh much againſt that of
Chrift and his Apoftles, who affert the
contrary, but Le Clerk, Dr. Stanhope,
Jenkins, Hammond, P. Simon, White,
Whiston, and others. p. 44, 45, 46. Grotius
alſo, he ſays, fhews this of most if not all
of the prophecies and citations quoted
from the old in the new teftament; and
Dodwell, with the learned Sir John Mar-
Sham,
(67)
Sham, refer even the famous prophecy in
Daniel about the weeks to the times of
Antiochus Epiphanes; wherein he fhews
that the expreffions taken from thence
by Chriſt, and urg'd by him as foretell-
ing the deſtruction of Jerufalem by the
Romans, have only in a fecondary ſenſe, a
respect to that deftruction: And thus Sy-
renbuyfius hath diſcover'd the rules by
which the Apoftles cited and applied the
old teftament, which had been for feve-
ral ages loft, p. 60. To confirm his ob-
fervation that Chriftianity is wholly re-
vealed in the old teftament, he cites
Dodwell, p. 91. And in his Scheme of
Literal Prophecy, it is eaſy to obſerve,
that he hath perpetual recourſe to Gro-
tius and White, throughout his whole
reaſoning with the Bishop, and in many
places no fhadow of proof for the per-
fons to whom he refers the prophecies,
but this, that Grotius hath faid it; tho"
the prophecies will appear to be infinite-
ly more ftrain'd and wiredrawn by be-
ing applied to the perſons mentioned by
Grotius, than can be pretended, upon
their application to Jefus; as ſhall be de-
monſtrated in due time. And to men-
tion no more, to prove that our Lord
I 2
pro-
( 68 )
prophefied in a myftical and indeed very
ridiculous manner, he produces Irenæus,
who had it from Papias, and fome old
men, who had it from John, that our
Lord fhou'd fay,&c. p. 256. What can one
think of a man who is capable of ſuch a
manner of writing? Is the tale of fome
old men an authority to father fuch a
pitiful tale upon Chrift? Who can help
thinking but that he would infinuate, that
all the fayings of Chrift are as mere tales
as this, he aſcribes to him, upon the au-
thority of fome old men? Let any one
of common ſenſe and honefty judge,
whether fuch a repreſentation, without
a fingle word to guard againſt the ill
impreflions of it, be confiftent with the
character of a fair and candid writer. Are
any of the gospels filled with ſuch ſtuff?
Are theſe the words of our Lord, becauſe
Papias and fome old men faid they had
it from St. John? If they were the words
of Chrift, would not St. John have re-
lated it, as he did his other fayings? And
is not his filence a ftronger argument,
that our Lord never did ſpeak them,
than the hearsay teftimony of Papias,
and the old men to the contrary? Or
would our author perfuade us that we
have
(69)
have no more proof of the truth of the
gospel hiftory, than we have that this
impertinent tale were the words of Chrift?
Why doth he not then enter into a fair
debate upon this article, and diſpute with
us the facts upon which we affirm Chri-
ſtianity to be founded? This will be to
the purpoſe if he can difprove thefe,
and bring the reaſonable part of the world
to entertain as mean an opinion of the
Chriſtian religion as he can wifh; where-
as the prefent method he takes is only
proper to profelyte fuch, as I will not
name.
This author knows, as well as I can
inform him, that whatever opinion
we have of Grotius, Hammond,`` Stan-
hope and others that he hath named, as
to their abilities and learning, and that
tho' upon theſe accounts we pay a pro-
per deference and regard to their judg-
ments, yet that we do not facrifice our
underſtanding to them, nor believe them
any farther than as they prove what they
affert; and therefore to bring their au-
thorities inftead of arguments is to trifle:
to tell us they interpret fo and fo, fuch
and fuch a prophecy, without proving
them to be in the right, is to abuſe his
reader's patience, and under a fhew of
much
4
( 70 )
much learning, to fay nothing to the pur-
poſe. Much leſs doth it fignify, to quote
upon us Hickes, Dodwell, and others of
that ſtamp, who were too much preju-
diced and party men, to judge in many
places impartially of the fenfe of fcrip-
ture; and who would gladly have fet up
the power of the priesthood, and the
authority and traditions of what they
called the church, as fuperior to ſenſe,
reafon and ſcripture, and every thing that
is good.
Our author's arguments are
juſt againſt ſuch as are of their ſtamp and
ſcheme; but they will not at all affect
Chriſtianity as deliver'd in the goſpels and
epiftles, which to me appears as yet to
be a plain and reaſonable inſtitution,
and to be ſupported and eſtabliſhed by
proofs that will not be eaſily overthrown.
But to conclude this article, I cannot
help giving one friendly caution to the
writers againſt Chriſtianity, that for their
own credit, they would be fure of the
fenſe of the authors they quote, and not
bring in the names of Cicero, Tillotson,
and others, in fupport of opinions they
abhorred; as the author or authors of
the Difcourfe of free-thinking, and the
books under prefent confideration, are
noto-
( 71 )
(71
notoriouſly known to have done. But
to proceed,
It is a method equally unfair, as the
foregoing, and that argues a like pover-
ty of underſtanding, and badneſs of caufe,
to oppoſe the writers in defence of Chri-
ſtianity to one another, and to infinuate,
from their different ways of explaining
the more difficult parts of it, that the
whole of it is unintelligible, and without
any ſolid foundation. And yet this is
a never failing method the enemies to
Chriſtianity take, in order to expoſe it
to ridicule and contempt. Thus he op-
poſes Whiston to the generality of Chri-
ftians, as not having the fame opinion
of the divine infpiration and authority
of the books of the new teftament that
others have, and as adding feveral new
books to the canon of fcripture; and
from this difference he would argue the
uncertainty of our canon, or rather
againſt our having any canon at all, p.
18. &c. Mr. Reeves, who afferts, that
Chriſtianity is founded on ſuch ſolid ar-
guments, that if it be a cheat, we
are bound to embrace it, is confronted
with Biſhop Fell, Bifhop Stilling fleet, and
Hickes, who complain of the credulity,
defective-
(72)
defectiveneſs and herefies of the times
of the Apoſtles, and immediately after
ſo that, as he infers Christianity, in its pri-
mitive ftate, was deftitute of all external
arguments, of all other indeed befides
proofs from prophecy, p. 30, 31. Again,
fome learned men explain the prophecy
of Hofea xi. 1. myftically, and other
learned men have explain'd it otherwiſe,
tho' unſucceſsfully, p. 47. The opinions
of Grotius, Dodwell, Marfham, and o-
thers, who refer the prophecy of Daniel
to the times of Antiochus Epiphanes,
are oppoſed to that of moft other chri-
ftian divines, who unanimously refer it
to Chriſt, p. 49. And in the Literal
Scheme he affures us, that Dr. Clark, Mr.
Sykes, Mr. Bullock, and the Examiner
have, in ſome things, run counter to the
moſt receiv'd and plaineft notions in
theology, Pref. p. 8. i. e. to the opinions
of many other divines. Thus he oppofes
the Biſhop's explication, and Mr. Sykes,
about the prophecy of Zech. ix. 9. And
again about that of Zech. xii. 10. inſtead
of proving the Biſhop to be in the wrong,
and Mr. Sykes in the right; which two
prophecies, I apprehend this learned gen-
tleman hath entirely miſtaken, and that
the
(73)
the Bishop's fenfe is much more agree-
able to the literal meaning of them, not-
withſtanding all that Grotius hath faid to
the contrary. And to mention no more,
he winds up his argument againſt the
Biſhop's fenfe of the twelve prophecies,
with this obfervation, That notwith-
Standing the pretence to literal prophecies,
there is not one fuch pretended prophecy
but is given up by fome eminent Chriftian
commentator or other, as almost all of them
are by the great Grotius. And to con-
firm this he urges Dean Stanhope, Dr.
Clarke and others, Scheme of Literal Pro-
phecy, p. 211, &c.
་
Thus our author for his diverſion ſets our
Chriſtian writers together by the ears, and
pleaſantly laughs at them for their various
and contradictory opinions. I doubt not,
but if ſome of our modern Deifts were to
write their ſeveral ſchemes of religion,
and publiſh their principles to the world,
we ſhou'd ſee theſe great maſters of reaſon
fall into very different thoughts, and rea-
foning as contrary to one another, as the
moft differing Chriftians can be fhewn to
do. We ſhould find materialiſts and ſpi-
ritualifts, fome pleading for the eternity
of the world, others for its being the
K
produce
(74)
produce of time; fome for the liberty
of human actions, fome mechanically ar-
guing againſt it; fome for a ſtricter, others
for a loofer ſet of morals, juſt as they
happened to be more or lefs difpoſed for
virtue or vice. Their different fenti-
ments as to fome of theſe things appear
from their writings already publiſhed.
Now would it not be pleafant enough,
if one fhou'd infer from this variety of
opinions, that none of them are true,
that the world is neither eternal nor
created, that there is neither fate nor li-
berty, and the like? And yet is not this
the very inference our author would draw
from the different fentiments of Chri-
ftian writers, as to the canon of fcrip-
ture, and the prophecies of the old teſta-
ment, and other controverted matters re-
lating to Chriftianity? Is it not with a
deſign to fhew that our canon is uncer-
tain, our proofs of Chriftianity precari-
ous, and the whole of it an unintelligi-
ble, weak and trifling inſtitution?
O vim maximam erroris !
Is this the impartial debate, the fair
reaſoning, that our adverfaries, theſe
ftrenuous affertors of liberty, plead
for? Surely all Chriftianity is not alle-
gory, nor all the proofs of Chriftiani-
ty
( 75 )
ty founded upon allegories, nor all the
doctrines of Chriftianity fubject to de-
bate. That there is a God, that he ſent
Chriſt into the world; that Chrift did
many wonderful works; that he lived a
good life, and taught many excellent
truths, and preached up the neceffity of
piety and virtue; that he died upon the
croſs, and roſe again from the dead; fure-
ly Dodwell, and Grotius, and other Chri-
ſtian writers do not diſpute theſe points;
herein they unanimoufly agree; and is
not their agreement in theſe things, in
which the main of Chriftianity confifts,
of as great weight for the truth of it,
as their difference in other things is againſt
it? The truth is, that their opinions are
in themſelves of no weight in either cafe,
the nature of prophecy and the proofs of
Chriſtianity not being in the leaft depen-
dent on the explications of others. And
therefore his not ſtirring a ſtep without
the concurrence of fome eminent divine
is no argument of his not departing from
truth, tho' it ferves to encreaſe the num-
ber of his pages, and may make him ad-
mired for his learning by fome of his
weak and credulous followers.
'Tis indeed an eaſier way of difproving
K 2
the
(76)
the fenſe the Biſhop and other Chri-
ftian writers have put on the old tefta-
ment prophecies, to ſay this is contrary
to the opinion of the great Grotius, and
the ingenious Mr. White, than to give
another account of them equally folid
and rational: and our author generally
hath choſen this eaſier part, tho' I think
not much to the advantage of his caufe;
for were our differences, about fo antient
and difficult a matter as prophecy, much
wider than they are, I fhou'd ſtill re-
main a Chriftian; at leaſt till our author
publiſhes his intended treatiſe of mira-
cles, for the enlightning and re-conver-
fion of mankind.
I am apprehenfive I may incur the
diſpleaſure and cenfure of the perfon or
perfons, upon whoſe method of con-
troverſy I have made the above reflecti-
ons, and be complain'd of as writing in
the abuſive ſtrain. He tells us, that most
of the answers that have been written
to his Difcourfe of the Grounds are writ-
ten in the common abufive ftrain, and
that two or three of them hardly admit
of any parallel. Literal Scheme, preface,
p. 6. I am very forry if he hath been
reflected on in an unbecoming manner,
or
( 77 )
or his principles mifreprefented. How-
ever one may juftly expect, that he will
not uſe the fame method of writing
that he blames in others, but confine
himſelf wholly to his argument, and
act the part of a polite and generous
adverſary. This he profeffes in his pref.
p. 6, 7. To prevent which immoral
way of writing for the future, the au-
thor of theſe papers feems to provide the
most effectual remedy; and that is by ma-
king no returns of the like kind, and
confining himself wholly to the argument ;
which proceeding cannot but habituate a
reader to be calm and difpaffionate in the-
ological enquiries, and may shame an
adverfary into decency, who perhaps will
leave off Scolding, when he hath no body
to fcold with him, and will then difco-
ver his own deformity. This is well
written, and I wifh for this author's fake
that he had punctually obferved his own
rule. But whether he himſelf be not
an abusive and therefore immoral writer,
let his own words determine. He com-
plains of the Biſhop, that his book a-
bounds with falfe quotations and mifre-
prefentations of perfons and things, and
more particularly of the author of the
Diſcourſe
( 78 )
Difcourſe of the Grounds; and that
there are very few quotations and repre-
fentations just and true, p. 386. That
another of his arts conſiſts in making certain
perfonal and invidious attacks upon his
adverfaries, p. 404. And tho' he declares
he will make no returns of the like
kind, yet he introduces his Literal Scheme
with an invidious reprefentation of the
Bishop's defign in engaging in this con-
troverſy, p. 1, &c. Your Lordship wiſhes
to fee fome remarks on the Bishop of Litch-
field and Coventry's book
which
you ſay was undertaken at the request of
his brethren.- By which honourable re-
quest he could not but be animated to un-
dertake a caufe, to which, when it is
orthodoxly maintained and defended, the
wealth, dominion, pleaſure and glory of
the world are annexed, and for which he
was fure of a great degree of applaufe if
his performance had the appearance of
learning and reafon. And afterwards he
adds, that falfe reafoning runs through-
out the whole of his book, p. 8. that he
affigns meanings to the prophetick writ-
ings, is dogmatical for thoſe meanings,
and requires that men ſhould be puniſhed
in their perfons and fortunes for not re-
ceiving
(79)
ceiving his meanings, and thinks that re-
wards and privileges are due for defend-
ing those meanings, p. 112. that he fub-
verts the clear and undoubted meaning of
the prophets, introduces chimerical mean-
ings, contrary to the common fenfe of the
words, and the connection of their dif
courſe, p. 113. that he invents and fup-
ports Jewish teftimonies, p. 116. that
there is a perpetual fophiftry runs through
every part of his meaning, p. 210. that
the Biſhop, by reprefenting, what he un-
derſtood (and I may add, I believe every
one elfe that read him) to be the natural
confequence of a paffage in the author
of the Difcourfe of the Grounds, p. 47.
gives the reader a true idea of his own
morality, humanity, and his fort of Chri-
Stianity, p. 391. that he ought to be taken
to task for his fermon about the Word,
where he fetches Arianiſm (as he doth
his Christianity in his defence) from the
Rabbins, thereby fubverting the doctrines
of the holy and ever bleſſed Trinity, and
the proper divinity of Chriſt, as they
are established by law, &c p. 398. with
many other reflections, which the reader
may ſee in his 13th chapter, to which I re-
fer him; where he will find a much greater
diſregard
(80)
difregard to character, than he can with
juſtice complain of with reſpect to him-
felf in others, and which give the reader
a true idea of his morality, humanity, and
of his fort of religious notions; and could
I ſuppoſe, that what is implied in this
way of repreſenting, was a picture of the
temper and ſpirit, and of the notions and
defigns of our modern Deifts, I would ſay,
O my foul, enter not thou into their
fecrets, unto their affembly, mine honour,
be thou not united. I ſhould here ask
the Bishop's pardon, for heaping to-
gether fuch a number of undeferved re-
flections levelled against him.
But as
the author of the Literal Scheme exclaims
againſt the abufive manner of his adver-
faries writings, and fets out with a refo-
lution to be moderate, and not to ſcold,
that he may habituate others to be calm
and difpaffionate, I have taken the li-
berty to put together theſe inſtances of
his good manners, and difpaffionate tem-
per with regard to his Lordſhip, that the
world may ſee how well he hath kept
his promiſe, and what an admirable pat-
tern he is for the imitation of all future
writers.
It
( 81 )
It was however politick enough in
this writer, to cry out of mifreprefen-
tations, and perfonal attacks, of fup-
pofitions, inventions, and chimerical
meanings; that by this method he might
perfuade us to believe, that he himſelf
is an ingenuous, fair and candid writer,
and worthy of the honour he fets up
for, of being an example to others; or
at leaſt might fave himſelf the trouble
of doing, what he hath not the courage
to do, viz. of retracting and publickly
owning his numerous miſrepreſentations
of facts, perfons, and paffages of fcrip-
ture. Did ever any one book more a-
bound with theſe than that of Free-
thinking, for which that author hath been
publickly characteriſed? And yet, tho' his
miſtakes have been painted out in the
moſt glaring colours, and his miſrepre-
fentations of perfons and characters made
appear in ſo evident a manner, as
would have made fome men for ever
afhamed, and as openly to have own-
ed their miſtakes as they made them;
there hath not been the leaſt acknow-
ledgment that I know of to this day,
not a fingle error retracted, nor pardon
asked for fuch a notorious impofition,
L
and
こ
​( 82 )
and abuſe of the publick. And tho'
there is ſcarce a page of the Difcourſe of
the Grounds, at leaft the first part, that
hath not fome fneers at Chrift, St.
Paul, and other Chriftian writers, tho'
he evidently mifreprefents the grounds
of Chriſtianity, abounds with mean
and odious compariſons, and perverts
and wrefts the fenfe of fcripture, and
affigns meanings to the apoftolick wri-
tings in order to render them contempti-
ble; yet hath he not in the Scheme of Li-
teral Prophecy, written in defence of that
difcourfe, added one word, as I can find,
to foften and palliate his meaning, or
caution his reader againſt miſtaking the
fenfe he hath not acknowledged an
error throughout that whole book, but
rather goes on to juftifie his former
charges, fee Lit. Scheme, p. 246, 247. and
in very extraordinary language takes the
Biſhop to task, for drawing the only in-
ference that I think could be drawn from
his own premiffes; fince if Chrift did
affert a real fafhood, or misinterpret a
fingle prophecy, very little regard ought
to be paid to his authority and character.
Such a method of controverfy as this,
wherein after numerous miftakes have
;
been
(83)
been fhewn, and mifreprefentations of
paffages and characters demonftrated, no
conceffions are made, nor any apology
offered to the world, is not, I apprehend,
much to the reputation of the Gentlemen
that uſe it, nor to the cauſe they efpouſe.
A man truly fincere and unprejudic-
ed, a man of real integrity and genero-
fity, owns and rejects an error with
as much pleaſure as he embraces a
truth; and far from being aſhamed to
acknowledge a miſtake, and to confeſs
himſelf to have been in the wrong, if
he hath through inadvertence, prejudice,
paffion, or party fpirit, been lead to
make any unkind or untrue repreſentati-
ons of perfons and things, he counts it
his honour to fubmit to cenfure where
'tis juftly and friendly given, and to re-
tract an error even tho' it be difcovered
by an adverſary. And in this I have the
concurrence and approbation of the au-
thor of the Lit. Scheme, who tells us,'
p. 418. That he hath a creed of his own,
which he is far from impofing on others,
and ready to renounce every article of it
himſelf, upon better information, to which
he hopes always to be open. This is ho-
neft and fair in him, and what ought to
L 2
be
?
(84)
be the temper of every writer, but I
think more eſpecially of thoſe who op-
poſe Chriſtianity; fince there is ſuch a
deference due to the religion of ones
country, as fhould lead every man to
treat it with decency and good manners;
and eſpecially fince there have been ma-
ny perſons, as eminent for their virtue,
abilities and learning, as any of the ad-
verſaries of it can pretend to be, who,
after the ftricteft and moft impartial en-
quiries into the nature and grounds of it,
and after all the difficulties they have
found attending it, have yet, upon ſtrong
evidence, and full conviction, acknow-
ledged its divine original, and lived well,
and died with pleaſure, under the belief
and influence of it.
The author of the Grounds, and the
Scheme of Literal Prophecies is not the
firſt, that hath diſcovered the difficulty of
the old teftament prophecies, as they
are applied in the new; tho' he pretends
he hath advanced a fcheme of fuch things
as will account for all matters in the pre-
fent difpute, and is apprehenfive that
Scheme may appear new and furpriſing,
Pref. p. 7. But I beg leave humbly to con-
ceive otherwife; and do affure him, that
his
( 85 )
his ſcheme is far from being new, fince
there is little or nothing that he hath
advanced, but gleanings collected out of
Grotius, Dodwell, P. Simon, and other
authors that he hath quoted; and that were
his two volumes ſtripped of all their bor-
rowed ornaments, they would appear in
a much humbler fize and form than they
now do to the world. Nor am I fur-
priſed at any thing ſo much in the ſcheme
advanced, but the author's conception, that
it will account for all matters in the pre-
fent debate.
See how excellently he hath account-
ed for Daniel's prophecy of the ſeven-
ty weeks. That prophecy plainly and
evidently ſpeaks of one Meffias, that
was to come in fuch a time, and then
to be cut off. Any one at firſt view
and reading would conclude that the Mef-
fias in both verfes was one and the fame
perfon: At leaſt he would not imagine
there fhould be three Meſſiah's. And yet
our author's ſcheme is, that this prophe-
cy points out Meffias Cyrus, Meffias
Judas Maccabeus, and Meffias Onias
the high priest. He ought to have add-
ed the fourth, viz. Prince Meffias An-
tiochus Epiphanes, And to confute all
pretences of a literal prophecy of Chrift,
he
( 86 )
he tells us, He will explain the words by
another event to which they greatly cor-
refpond, which event will the rather ap-
pear to be defigned, inasmuch as it doth
not appear, that the book of Daniel was
written till after the event, p. 164. Now
let the reader judge of the excellency of
our author's fcheme, which is to folve
all our difficulties. If the prophecies of
the old teftament do not fo directly and
clearly point out the Chriftian Meffias,
then their application to Jefus is al-
legorical and typical. If on the other
hand, there is any clear prophecy that
refers to future times, and is literally
applicable to Chrift, fuch as Daniel's
feventy weeks, then the answer is, That
this book was written about the time
of Antiochus Epiphanes, as the nature
of the thing will determine any one to
think, in respect of fuch clear prophecies,
the existence whereof, before the event re-
ferred to by them, had no proof, p. 143.
and that Daniel's punctuality, fo uncom
mon to prophecies, can be owing to no-
thing elfe, but the time of his compofition,
when the author, who was an eye witness
to the things he ſpeaks of, could very easily
place them in the order of time when they
happened, p. 147, 148.
Асце
( 87 )
Acutum hominem? quam paucis verbis
negotium confectum putat?
Such an eaſy and quick method of ſolv-
ing difficulties argues the greateſt elegance
and accuracy of judgment. All which
however I let go, at prefent, without any
anfwer, leaving it to the reader to judge of
a caufe, that requires fuch reafoning to de-
fend it, and of our author's capacity for
employing it.
His fcheme is equally good in fol-
ving the difficulties of that prophecy of
Ifaiah, xlii. 1, &c. where it is faid, I
have put my Spirit upon my fervant, he
fhall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles,
the ifles fhall wait for his laws, I will
give thee for a covenant to the people, and
for a light to the Gentiles; which is,
that many of the Gentiles being convert-
ed to the true God, fhall feek and have
recourſe to Hezekiah, p. 130. Or elſe 'tis
the Jewish people according to Grotius,
or Cyrus according to our judicious com-
mentator White. ibid. And if there ap-
pears to be a concurrence of paffages and
prophecies to the fame purpoſe, our au-
thor's ſcheme hath provided a folution
for this difficulty, viz. That David's fenfe
ought to be determined by David's own
words,
( 88 )
words, and not by the interpretation of an
author (Iſaiah) to whom they pay no re-
gard, and who if he intends to interpret
David they think he mistakes him, p. 129.
At bona verba precor.
This is too haſtily ſaid, and a confeffion
of his faith that he had better have kept in.
For if this author's ſcheme be, as he hath
openly declared, that he pays no regard to
Ifaiah, and by conſequence to no other of
the prophets; that the ſcheme will never
relifh with perſons, who apprehend the
marks of a divine inſpiration in their wri-
tings; as is the caſe both of the Jews and
Chriſtians; and will certainly prejudice
them againſt all folutions of difficulties
upon his ſcheme, till he can, by ſtronger
arguments than meer affertions and ran-
dom charges, perfuade them to pay as
little regard to them, as he doth himſelf.
And is it not an excellent foundation
upon which he hath placed Chriſtianity?
Chriſtianity is founded upon prophecies;
not upon the proper, but myftical falfe
meaning of prophecies; and upon the
falfe meaning of perfons to whom he
pays no regard. This is the NEW, THE
SURPRISING SCHEME that the world
is now bleffed with, the difcovery of
which
( 89 )
which is claimed by our author as his pe-
culiar glory. I envy him not any part
of the applaufe he is to gain, but am
ftill content to be reckoned among the
credulous numbers who bélieve the old ;
being ſtill methinks able to difcern a
Meffiah in the Jewish fcriptures, and all
the characters of that Meffiah in the
Chriſtian's Jefus, even tho' there be not
the term Jefus Chrift, the fon of Mary,
in the prophetick writings, that deter-
mine the words literally to mean him.
But there is another part of his ſcheme;
which perhaps may appear; at firſt view,
furpriſing and ſomewhat new. The ar-
gument from prophecies, as ſtated by the
moft judicious Chriftian writers, ftands
thus. That there are certain paffages
in the prophetick writings that do re-
late to future things and events; that
there is a particular perfon fpoken of
throughout moſt of thoſe writings, and
deſcribed by particular marks and cha-
racters that the feveral prophets do a-
gree in their deſcriptions of him; that
thoſe deſcriptions did not literally agree
to any perſon or perfons living at the
time when thofe predictions were deli
vered; that theſe predictions do generally
M
agree
3
(90)
agree to Jefus Chrift; that he did de-
clare himſelf to be the perfon fſpoken of
under thoſe deſcriptions; that he wrought
miracles to confirm his divine miſſion
and that therefore he was the perfon
whom thoſe deſcriptions did point out.
Now I apprehend if this argument be
fairly overthrown, it muſt be proved,
either that there are no prophecies of
fuch a perſon in the old teſtament; or
that thoſe deſcriptions contradict one an-
other; or that they were accompliſhed
in ſome perſon or perſons before Chrift ;
or that they were not accompliſhed in
him. But in order to fave his reader the
trouble of fuch an expectation, he over
and over tells him, that he is not to
imagine, that the adverfaries, the Bishop
writes againft, think themfelves obliged
to shew, how any prophecy in the old
teſtament ever was fulfilled. Thus when
the Biſhop juftly urges the prophecy
of Malachi, that it is not poffible to
find any other perfon, but the Meſſiah,
to whom the words agree; and that from
Malachi to the deftruction of the tem-
ple no one can be named, except the
Lord Jefus, who is able to make pre-
tenfions to the exprefs characters in
this
( 91 )
this prophecy, his ſcheme is to anſwer,
As if thofe men, against whom the Bishop
pretends to write, were concerned to name
the perfons intended by the prophets, or
to find out meanings for the prophets,
and to make thofe meanings to be ful-
filled, or elfe to acknowledge them to re-
late to a Meffiah, and to Jefus as fuch!
Lit. Scheme, p. 110.
Feftive & breviter,
i. e. as if thoſe men were concerned to
underſtand a book, and to account for
the nature and application of thoſe pro-
phecies, about which book, and the na-
ture and application of which prophe-
cies, they have engaged the world in a
freſh debate, and which they pretend to
underſtand better than either Jews or
Chriſtians; poſitively affirming, that ſuch
particular explication and reference, as
doth not fuit their ſcheme, is as vifio-
nary, and as remote from the true fenfe of
the prophets, as one difpofed to pervert
their writings, and to render them con-
temptible, could put upon them.
This he affirms of the application of
the old teftament prophecies in gene-
ral to Jefus; and as to this prophecy of
Malachi in particular, he will venture
to endeavour to prove, that the whole
M 2
con-
( 92 )
context is inconfiftent with the Bishop's
explication, and alſo to affign the true
meaning of Malachi. And thus he be-
gins. The faid meffenger in Malachi
is to come to his temple as lord and pro-
prietor, i. e. to dwell and prefide there,
to give oracles, and to fet up the Jewish
forms of worship; but this is not in the
text, and I will venture to affirm not to
be found in the whole prophecy: He
adds, he is the messenger of the covenant.,
i. e. the Jewish covenant, the covenant
made with Levi, which alfo is not in
the text, tho' at the third verſe it is de-
clared, that he was to purify the fons
of Levi, and purge them as gold and fil
ver, viz. by deftroying all thofe that
would not hearken to this meffenger of
the covenant; that they might offer to
the Lord. an offering in righteousness,
and that the offering of Judah and Je-
rufalem might be pleasant to the Lord,
as in the days of old, viz. as being a
righteous offering, or a pure offering,
which even the Gentiles in every place
were to offer, as chap. i. ver. II. which
words of the prophet are a better ex-
plication of the nature of the offering
than our author's comment. I agree
•
❤
with
( 93 )
with him in fome part of what follows,
viz. that God threatens, that when this
meffenger comes he will exact obedience
to his ordinances, i. e. to the ordinances
this meffenger fhall deliver; and that
on this occafion God fays he changes not;
and that therefore it was that the fons of
Jacob were not confumed, i. c. God's un-
changeable goodneſs was the true reafon
why they were not confumed for their
vices, before the appearance of this meſſen-
ger of the covenant. And therefore he ex-
horts them to return to him, and to bring
in the prefcribed offerings to his houſe, that
he might pour out a bleffing on them, and
that they might be happy in their land
till the appointed time of his coming,
when thoſe who feared the Lord, fhould
be spar'd, and ſee the ſon of righteousness
arife with healing in his wings, and
tread down the wicked as afhes under
their feet. Remember therefore fays, God,
the law of Mofes, as the way to happi-
ness, and to prevent judgments; for I
will fend you Elijah the prophet, &c.
chap. iv. ver. 4. to the end. Which
words are only an admonition to the
Jews to remember and obſerve the law
of Mofes, till the appearance of the ſaid
3 Elijah,
( 24 )
Elijah, who was to prepare the way for
this meſſenger of the covenant. This
ſeems to me to be the natural, unforced
literal meaning of the prophecy. And
how therefore doth all this plainly relate
to God? 'Tis allowed that the fecond mef
fenger was to come as lord and proprietor
of his temple. But was this messenger of
the covenant to be the God who fent
him? Is God his own meffenger? Had
he a meffenger to bring his covenant
and is he that brings it, and he that fent it
abfolutely the fame! This interpretati
on will not do according to critical rules,
and therefore our author must find out
fome more ingenious folution of this
difficulty, or elſe. his fcheme, however
new I allow it to be, will not be
thought very ſurpriſing. And how is
this account fo wholly inconfiftent with
the character and defign of Jesus? How
hath this diſputer proved that Jefus, ac-
cording to his true character, was not
a perfon fought by, and could not be the
delight of the Jews? Why, becauſe he
came to put an end to the old covenant,
and to deftroy the Jewish priesthood.
Admirable! Was not this the very end of
his coming? Had not God promiſed to
make
(95)
make a new covenant with the houſe
of Ifrael, not according to the covenant
he made with their fathers when he
brought them out of Egypt, but to put
his law in their inward parts, that fo he
might be their God, and they his people?
Jer. xxxi. 31, &c. And if a new cove-
nant was to be introduced, furely the
covenant with Levi could not ſtand.
No, this meſſenger of the covenant was
to come as a refiner's fire, and to cauſe
a righteous offering to be offered. This
was exactly agreeable to the character
and defign of Chrift, who did come
as Lord into his temple, who had his
meffenger to prepare his way; who did
purge the houſe of Levi, by deſtroying
as droſs all that would not hearken to
him; and who did cauſe an offering of
righteouſneſs to be offered up in Judah
and Jerufalem, and amongſt the Gentiles
in every place; and who therefore was
fought by, and was the delight of the
antient Jews, tho' the Jews at the time
of his appearance did not receive him,
as it was never prophecied they ſhould,
but on the contrary that they ſhould re-
ject him, as they actually did. So that
our author's objection againſt the appli-
cation
·
(96)
cation of this prophecy to Chrift is either
founded on a miſtaken fenſe of the parts
of it, or elſe is a vindication of the necef
fity and justice of fuch an application;
and the Biſhop hath done juftice to it in
affirming it literally and folely to belong
to Chrift, and the more carefully his
Lordship's account of it is confidered,
it will appear the more rational and folid.
And whether the Literal Scheme author
thinks himſelf obliged or not to do it,
yet if he will do any thing to the pur
poſe, he muft affign meanings to the pros
phets, and fhew to whom befides Chrift
thoſe true or proper meanings are appli
cable, or demonftrate that thoſe mean-
ings do not agree to the character of
Chriſt, or elſe he will not be able to pro
felyte us to his own unconcerted fcheme,
that he hath now oblig'd the world with,
or any other that he is able to invent.
When Chriftians of underſtanding and
common fenſe ſpeak of the Meffiah of
the old teftament, they only mean by it,
that there was an extraordinary perſon
deſcribed in thoſe books; that there is
mention made of him in the law, the
pfalms, and the prophets; that there is
an harmony and univerfal agreement in
thofe
( 97 )
thoſe deſcriptions; that no perfon can
be produced but Jefus to whom they
agree, and that to him they do agree;
and this they think an high probability,
that Jesus was that extraordinary perſon,
becauſe he affirmed it of himſelf, and
had the teſtimony of his Father that his
witneſs was true. What can we defire,
or what do we need more? Why yes
we muſt prove that the prophets did mean
the Lord Meffiah, p. 108. i. e. we muſt
prove that they did mean what they fay
exprefly they did mean, viz. an extraordi-
nary perſon, whom they call Lord, the root
of David, the fervant, the anointed, the fal
vation of the Lord, whom Jews and Chri-
ftians have agreed to call the Meffias. And
we must prove that the prophets meant
Jefus; and this we can folidly do, by
Thewing that they agree with him, and
with no one elfe. Thus I think our au-
thor's ſcheme is ſurpriſing, ſcarce upon
any other account but the vaft inconfift-
ency of it, and the falſe reaſonings up-
on which he endeavours to fupport it.
But he hath other referves of formi-
dable objections againſt Chriſtianity, than
what ariſe from the nature and applica-
N
tion
( 98 )
tion of the old teftament prophecies. He
hath as yet given us but a ſmall fample
of what he can farther do, and tells us,
That as to prophecies themselves he hath
cited but a few inftances as a specimen ;
and that the Bishop knows that there are
many other questions of the fame nature
in the new teftament, and knows, that
the affair of the quotations made out of
the old in the new teftament, hath no re-
lation to the quotations about the anti-
quity, authority, inspiration, and perfec-
tion of the books of the old and new tef-
tament, or to the questions of the mo-
rality, religious doctrines, and other no-
tions contained in thoſe books; or to the
queftions of the harmony of the parts of
those books to one another; or to the
questions of the contradiction of thofe
books to prophane history; or to the quef-
tions of the miracles reported in thoſe books,
to fay nothing of divers other heads that
might be treated of, p. 389. As to all
theſe important queſtions, he tells us,
That he is perfuaded that the author of
the Diſcourſe of the Grounds, as he hath
been free to declare or infinuate his fenti-
ments in divers matters, for those who
>
3
have
(99)
have ears to hear; fo he will be no less
free to declare his fentiments in all others,
and particularly as to what he takes to
be the will of God or religion, provided
he have that liberty to propofe his fenti-
ments, which all men are allowed to have
in other matters of importance to man-
kind; and herein he will, he is perfua-
ded, be fo free as to declare what true
and original Christianity is, and what ad-
ditions have been made to it, p. 409.
I really wonder at the ingenuity
modefty, freedom, and good nature of
the author of the Grounds, who hath
thus given commiflion to the author
of the Literal Scheme, to declare his
readiness to give the world fuch infor-
mation. Proteſtants, ever ſince they have
had the bible in their hands, have been
inclined to think, that they have under-
ftood fomewhat at leaft of what true
and original Chriftianity is. But it feems
they have been miſtaken: they have
not embraced it pure, but received an
adulterated ſpurious Chriſtianity. But
the author of the Grounds is better in-
formed, and if we have but ears to hear,
will be fo free as to declare what true
N 2
and
( 100 )
and original Chriftianity is. I find he
doth not care to run any hazard for
the fake of truth, and the information
of the world; and that if he doth be-
lieve Chriſtianity, 'tis a Chriſtianity quitè
different from that in the gospel, be-
cauſe that we may all underſtand if wè
will; and that he is got into the way
of the faſhionable divines, in not ſpeak-
ing what he thinks, but concealing his
thoughts about the particulars of Chri-
ſtianity, and profeffing a religion he
doth not believe. And I very much quef-
tion, whether he would burn, or even fa-
crifice any enjoyment of this world for
the fake of opinion; I will not add, be-
caufe 'tis too invidious, tho' he affirms
it of many of the Clergy, that he would
fubfcribe to any thing to fave his life
and fortune; tho' I will add, who ſeems,
to say nothing worse of him, not to think
any opinions worth fuffering for himself;
and who fhews what little stress he lays
even on opinions, whereof he seems per-
fuaded, by his concealing, difguifing,
and palliating them, because contrary to
the current orthodoxy, p. 400.
I am apprehenfive the world will expect
fome
( 101 )
fome very ſtrong proofs of his fincerity,
learning and abilities, before they will
think him qualified for the apoſtolick
work, of opening mens eyes, and turning
them from darkness to light; and that he
muft give us good arguments of his belief
of Chriſtianity, before we fhall take up
with his repreſentations of it. I hope
however, that we shall have ears to hear
him, and I even impatiently long for
his account of genuine Chriftianity, to
have the antiquity, authority, inſpirati-
on and perfection of the books of both
teftaments difcuffed and fettled by him,
the morality of thoſe books explained,
the harmony of them clear'd, the con-
tradictions reconciled, and the miracles
of them ſtated; this would be a work
highly uſeful, as it is important, and
which would exceedingly oblige all the
lovers of truth, and would tend migh-
tily to reform the world from bigot-
try and impofture. It is however a lit-
tle unkind in him, to frighten us with
difficulties he is afraid or unwilling to
folve, and to raife fuch high expectati-
ons from his fuperior abilities and learn-
ing, without anſwering them, which
would redound fo much to his repu-
tation and honour.
But
( 102 )
But he chufes the wifer, i. e. the fa-
fer part, and is refolved in compliance
with the clergy whom he blames for the
fame practice, to fecure himſelf, what-
ever becomes of truth; and if their con-
cealing and palliating the truth is an ar
gument of any force, may not the ſame
thing be urged againſt himſelf; that in-
ftead of arguing openly againft Chriftia-
nity, he diſguiſes and palliates his mean-
ing, and ſhelters himſelf under ambigui-
ty, and the appearance and guiſe of a
friend and believer? And the more ef-
fectually to ſtave off all danger from hist
perfon, he fends his books into the world.
without a name to own them, fpreads
them privately, prints them abroad, with
a defign no doubt to prevent any pub-
lick cenfure, if he ſhould happen to de-
ferve it; or which I rather think is the
principal reaſon, that they may be thought
the more formidable, and uncapable of
being anſwered. If there is any argu-
ment in all this, doth it not look as if
he ſuſpected his own cauſe, or want-
ed to build a reputation upon myf-
tery and fuppofitions; or, which is worſe,
as though he thought that as Chri-
ftians
4
(103)
ftfans we have none of us ears to hear,
and that our religion is of ſo tender
and delicate a nature, as not to bare the
touch and teft of fair reaſon and argu-
ment. But let him know, that there are
men equally impartial in their inquiries
as himſelf, who fcorn to palliate and
diffemble, who would account it their
glory to part with an error, whoever
be the diſcoverer of it, and whatever
emoluments and honours are annexed
to the belief of it; who embrace Chrifti-
anity not from education, intereft or par-
ty; who if it be an impofture would be
glad to diſcover and renounce it, and
who are ſo far from being afraid of any
of his objections, that they would be glad
to hear them, and fairly anſwer them if
they can, or if not, fubmit to the evi-
dence and force of them.
It may however be juftly expected
from this author and his friends, that
they ſhould not only attempt to ſubvert
the Chriftian religion, and difengage us
from all the principles of morality, and
the powerful motives to fupport the
practice of it, contained in it; but that
they
( 194 )
they ſhould, as friends to the common
interefts and welfare of mankind, en-
deavour to advance a nobler and truer
fcheme in the room of that they are
labouring to deftroy. He doth indeed
tell us, Grounds and Reafons, Pref.
P.
. so. That the greatest contenders for
liberty of debate in matters of religion
do contend for fome restraints on that li
berty, and think that there are certain
propofitions, which ought not to be cal
led in question, as being neceſſary to be
profeffed for the Support of peace, and
order in fociety, or at least not denied.
What theſe certain propofitions are he
hath not told; and when he takes on
him to declare what are the peculiar re-
ligious notions of the author of the
Difcourfe of the Grounds, he hath it
only negatively, viz. That the faid au-
thor pays no regard to the mere autho-
rity of Jews, Heathens, and Mahome-
tans, or of Papifts, Lutherans, Calvi-
niſts, Arminians, Anabaptifts or Qua-
kers but hath a creed of his own,
one word of which he hath not thought
fit to publiſh, p. 418. So that all we are
to expect is pofitively a negative creed.
But
( 105 )
But there are certain propofitions which
are neceſſary to be profeſſed, (obſerve his
great caution) no matter whether they
are believed or no. But why are they
neceffary to be profeſſed if not to be be-
lieved? Or what good can the profefli-
on do, abſtracted from the belief of them?
However he will have it, that they are
not to be denied at leaft. He is not quite
fure that they are not to be called in quef-
tion. You may privately in your own
mind deny the truth of thefe certain pro-
pofitions, and, as I fuppofe give shrewd
infinuations, and fpeak very freely of
them in private converfation, to your
men of deep penetration, who have ears
to hear. All you have to guard againſt
is, that you ſhou'd not publickly call them
into question, or at least not openly deny
them, becauſe they are neceffary to be
profeffed for the fupport of peace, and
order in fociety. Theſe certain propofi-
tions ought in juftice to fociety to have
been ſpecified, becauſe he allows the
profeffion of them neceffary to the peace
and order of it. And this conceffion is
an abundant proof that thefe propofiti-
ons are really true, and of the very higheſt
Q
import-
( 106 )
importance, and ought not only to be
profeſſed, or not denied, but firmly be-
liev'd; fince whatever is neceffary to
the peace and order of fociety is found-
ed in the nature and reafon of things,
and cannot be otherwife than it is, and
muſt be therefore as true as any propofi-
tions whatſoever.
If the profeffion, or not denying, or
abfolute belief of any propofitions is ne-
ceffary to the peace and order of fociety,
I ſuppoſe it muſt be, thoſe of the being
of a God, and the difference between
virtue and vice, upon the belief and ex-
pectation of future rewards and puniſh-
ments. I muſt do our author the juftice
to own, that in his attack of Chriftiani-
ty, he hath not excepted one fingle arti-
cle of it from the general charge. His
propofitions are, That if the proofs for
Christianity from the old testament, be
not valid p. 81. tho' fometimes they are
not to be found in the old, or not urged in
the new, according to the literal and ob-
vious fenfe, which they seem to bear in
their fuppofed places in the old, and there-
fore not proofs according to fcholaftick
rules, p. 39. if the arguments founded on
theſe
( 107 )
thefe books be not conclufive, then bath
Christianity no just foundation. Chriftia-
nity is then falfe, tho' the only defign of
it is to promote the happineſs of focie-
ties and of individuals, by the practice of
univerſal virtue and goodneſs, upon the
belief of that future ftate of rewards
and puniſhments, that God by Jefus
Chrift hath revealed to us. If our au-
thor hath any notion or perfuafion of
the truth of theſe principles, furely it
could not have been amiſs to have given
us fomething more than a negative creed.
What doth the world care whither he
is, or hath been à Calvinist, or Anabap-
tift, or Independent? It was never asked
him that I know of, what party of Chri-
ftians he once was of, as he is not now
fufpected to be of any. But 'tis ex-
pected of him, that he ſhould propoſe
fome better ſcheme than that of Chri-
ftianity, before he can prevail with us to
difcard it; or be fo good and free as to
declare what true and original Chriſtia-
nity is, before we throw off our prefent
notions of it. And I will venture to
tell him, that his oppofition to the re-
ligion of the gospel, without telling us
whether
J
O2
( 108 )
whether we muſt turn Mahometans, Pa-
gans, Jews, or other fort of religionist;
his endeavouring to confound and de-
froy Chriſtianity, and at the ſame time
concealing and palliating his own fenti-
ments as to God and religion, is neither
an argument of his own integrity, nor
of his regard to the peace and welfare
of focieties.
It is an eaſy matter to raiſe ob-
jections and ſtart difficulties, as to par-
ticular matters tranfacted feventeen hun-
dred years ago. But Chriſtianity doth
not ſtand upon fuch a fandy founda-
tion as he imagines, and is not to be
fubverted by quibbles, infinuations, and
falfe gloffes of fcriptures. If then he
would do any thing to the purpoſe to
weaken and overthrow the foundations
of it, let him fairly ſpeak his fentiments,
and publiſh his books; let him keep
from perfonal reflections, and not argue
againſt the truth of Chriftianity from the
vices of its profeffors; let him fairly re-
preſent the grounds and reaſons of it,
honeſtly explain the fenfe of our facred
writers, keep confiftent with himself;
quote no author but what he underſtands,
and
( 109 )
and quote him juftly; argue not againſt
the miſtakes and follies of thofe who
have written in defence of it, not bring
authorities for proofs, nor inſiſt on the
contradictory interpretations of others ;
let him keep from abuſive repreſentati-
ons of his adverfaries, let him retract his
miſtakes, and fometimes own himſelf in
the wrong; let him not pretend to fur-
prifing novelties; let him not flip out
of the difficulties of the queſtion, nor
give us his AS IFS inftead of reaſoning;
let him not threaten us with pretended
queſtions, objections, and difficulties, and
let him propoſe a better ſcheme in the
room of Chriftianity, a fcheme more
confiftent with the peace of God, more
conducive to the honour of focieties, and
the happineſs, preſent and future, of e-
very fingle member of it, and he may
expect to be heard with patience and
candor. Other methods may perhaps
ſerve to make profelytes of the credu-
lous, flothful and vitious, but will have
no other effect on the fober, inquifitive
and honeft part of mankind, but to give
them the higher notions of Chriſtianity,
and the more effectually to eftabliſh them
in the belief and practice of it, which I
pray
( 110 )
pray God may be the effect of the pre-
fent controverſy.
Thus have I taken notice of the un-
fair methods the adverfaries of Chriftia-
nity make uſe of in the prefent debate.
I think my felf bound however to ac-
knowledge, that there are many things
that the author of the Literal Scheme
hath collected about the matter of pro-
phecy, that deſerve a particular regard,
and careful examination. Tho' I cannot
admire his whole method of writing, and
abhor to ſee reflection and fneer mixed
with controverſy; yet I think there are
feveral difficulties very juftly ftated and
ftrongly urged, which I hope will be
folved, not by the dint of authority, but
by the only method proper to anſwer
them, that of fuperior reaſon and argu-
ment. And I heartily with that for the
future the writers on both fides of the
queftion may keep wholly to the point,
fince Chriftianity can gain no ground by
our abufing the adverfaries of it, nor
loſe any ground by their abufing and
mifreprefenting it.
FINI S.
A
VINDICATION
OF THE
PROPHECY
O F
DANIEL.
1
A
VINDICATION
OF THE
Antiquity and Authority
OF
DANIEL's Prophecies,
And their APPLICATION to
JESUS CHRIST:
In Anſwer to the OBJECTIONS of the Author
of the Scheme of Literal Prophecy confider'd.
By SAMUEL CHANDLER.
Tardi ingenii eft, rivulos confectari, fontes rerum non videre.
CICERO de Orat. II.
Improbi hominis eft, mendacio fallere. Idem pro Murena.
LONDON:
Printed for JOHN GRAY at the Cross-Keys in the
Poultrey. 1728,
[v]
THE
PREFACE
T
HE great points, which the
author of the Diſcourſe of the
Grounds and Reafons, &c.
laid down, and endeavoured to
Support in that performance, were, that the
Old Teftament is the fole proof of Chrifti-
anity, and the Old Teftament writings the
only canon of fcripture to Chriſtians; that
Chriſtianity hath no other foundation than
the prophecies of the Old Testament to fup-
port it; and that thofe prophecies are ty-
pical and allegorical; that they are not
urged in the New Teftament, according to
the literal and obvious fenfe, which they
feem to bear in their fuppofed places in the
Old;
[vi]
Old; and that therefore they are no proofs
according to ſcholaftick rules. The infe-
rence from hence is, That if the proofs for
Chriſtianity from the Old Teftament be not
valid, if the arguments founded on thoſe books
be not conclufive, and the prophecies cited
from thence be not fulfilled, then hath Chri-
ftianity no juft foundation; for the founda-
tion on which Jefus and his Apoſtles built
it, is then invalid and falfe.
IN anfwer to this objection it hath been
urged, that Chriſtianity hath other founda-
tions to fupport it than the prophecies of the
Old Teftament, and that neither Chrift nor
his Apostles ever confidered or urged theſe
prophecies as the only proofs of the truth of
Christianity, but appeal conftantly and unani-
mously to other kinds of evidence, to prove
themſelves the messengers of God, and the
doctrines they delivered to be the doctrines
of God; and that as our Lord appeals to
prophecy for the proof of his being the Mef
fias, fo there are feveral exprefs predictions
in the Jewish writings, that relate to an
extraordinary perfon, who was to be raifed
up of God for the deliverance of his people,
which
[ vij ]
which predictions agree to, and were accom-
plished in Jefus of Nazareth; and that this
double kind ofevidence anfwers two very diftinct
purpoſes; the former to prove the divine miſſi-
on and authority of Christ, and the latter
that he was the Meffiah prophefied of
in the Old Teſtament, and conftantly expect-
ed by the Jews.
THIS is the real state of the contro-
verfy between the author of the Difcourfe of
the Grounds and Reaſons, and his adverfaries,
and this is the point that ſhould be kept in
view. The question is not, whether every
paffage cited out of the Old Teftament by
the writers of the New, and applied to Chrift,
is applied according to the primary defign
and meaning of fuch paffage. If there can
be aſſigned any juſt reaſons for the applica-
tion of fuch questionable paffages, the apoftles
are to be justified in making them, tho' they
Should not be proper and direct proofs of the
thing afferted; and if certain paſſages of
Scripture, all of which is written by a pro-
phetick Spirit, which are really no pre-
dictions, may in a proper fenfe be accomplish-
ed and fulfilled, by certain events to which
they
[viij ]
they answer, but did not originally belong,
those who apply them to fuch events may
juſtly affirm, that such parts of the pro-
phetick writings are accomplished by them,
and especially when fuch application is well
understood by thofe perfons, for whofe fake it
is made use of: and this will not prove,
that the paffages fo applied are affirmed to
be prophetick of the events they are applied
to by those that make it, or eſteemed as pro-
phetick by thofe for whofe use and advantage
it is made; much lefs will it prove, what
the author of the Diſcourſe must prove in
order to fupport his caufe, that the real mi-
racles of Chriſt, in confirmation of his good
doctrines, are not a fufficient evidence of his
being the meſſenger of God, or that the ac-
complishment of real prophecies in him, do
not demonftrate him to be the true Meffias.
FOR inftance, when St. Matthew tells
us, that Jofeph went with Jefus into
Ægypt, that it might be fulfilled, which
was ſpoken of the Lord by the prophet, ſay-
ing, Out of Egypt have I called my fon ;
he confidered that paffage as witten by a
prophet, and therefore fays it was fulfilled in
Chrift,
[ix]
;
Christ, who when a child came up out of ·
Egypt, just as Ifrael did when he was a
child. So that here is plain prophecy, or a
paſſage out of a prophetick author, applied to
an event to which it exactly answers, and
in which it was fulfilled. St. Matthew doth
not fay, that it might be fulfilled, which was
prophefied of concerning Christ; but only
what was ſpoken of the Lord by the pro-
phet. As every part of fcripture was written
under the influence of a prophetick ſpirit,
every part of it is proper prophecy, even thoſe
parts of it that contain no real predictions
and in this large fenfe the word prophecy is
often used. Of confequence, if fuch parts of
prophecy are cited and applied, they can't be
cited as predictions, but only to ſhew a re-
Semblance or correspondence of events, or for
Such other purpoſes as fuit the intention of him
that uses them, and are well understood by thofe
to whom they are urged. And therefore the
New Teftament writers are to be justified in
their application of ſuch paſſages, fince they
believed the divine authority of the books
they cited from, and those to whom they
wrote, understood the reafons and manner of
their quotations.
b
BUT
[ x ]
BUT it may be objected, how shall we
know when they cite the Old Teftament paf
Sages as proper predictions, and when they do
not? I answer, by comparing the Old and New
Teftament together, just as we would any
other two writings that have any dependance
on one another. Nothing is more ufual than
for writers, fometimes to confirm their fenti-
ments by paſſages from other approved au-
thors, as the Literal Schematist well knows;
and fometimes only to express themselves in
their words, without quoting them as autho-
rities. Now would it not be an impertinent
piece of criticism in any man, that should
take upon him to affirm, that fuch a writer
never quotes his authors as authorities, be-
cauſe he fometimes quotes them for a diffe-
rent purpose? Or that because he fometimes
quotes them as authorities, therefore he al-
ways doth? And yet this is the whole of
the argument against Chriftianity. The A-
poftles apply fome paffages to Chrift that are
not predictions of him, therefore they apply
none that are; or therefore they always quote
them in the allegorical or myftical fenfe. But
every one fees the folly and impertinence of
Such
[ xj ]
fuch an inference. Let the writings of the.
apostles be read with the fame candour as
thofe of other men, and their circumstances
as Jews, and believers of the authority of
the Jewish writings, be confidered, and their
quotations will all appear just and proper,
and not at all unworthy the character of men
under a divine infpiration.
THE author of the Literal Scheme of Pro-
phecy, who profeffedly writes in vindication
of the Difcourfe &c. ſhould have kept to the
main argument treated of in that book; to
the original pofition, that the Old Teſtament
is the fole proof of Chriftianity, which hath
no other foundation than the prophecies from
thence to ſupport it; and that Chrift and
his Apoſtles argued only from the allegorical
ſenſe of thoſe prophecies. These are strong
and repeated aſſertions, and which an honeſt
and impartial man should have had the cou-
rage to have retracted, or endeavoured to have
Supported. But as to both thefe the Literal
Schematift is filent. To retract is not his
province; but to flip from the real queſtion,
and dextrously to ſhift his argument, is his con-
ftant practice; and instead of maintaining
b 2
the
[ xij ]
the grand point, that Chriſtianity hath no
other foundation than the prophecies of the
Old Testament to fupport it, difputes with
us the fenfe and reference of fome particular
prophecies. This is a very unfair and difin-
genuous method of controversy; and tho' it
may profelyte his heedlefs and prejudiced rea-
ders, who have an intereft to ferve by reject-
ing the principles of revelation, yet can have
no bad influence upon fober minds, and im-
partial fearchers after truth.
I therefore conclude, from our author's fi
lence on this principle point of the argument,
that Chriftianity hath other foundations to
Support it than prophecies, viz. the goodness
of its doctrines confirmed by real miracles;
and fince the doctrines of Chrift and his
precepts are confiftent with reafon, confiftent
with one another, all tending to the honour
of God and good of men; his miracles, with
thefe circumstances, ought to determine men
to believe in him. The confequence our author
allows, fuppofing the truth of the premiſes, Li-
teral Scheme, p. 321, 322. And as theſe things
have never yet been fairly difproved, but ftand
upon
[ xiij ]
on the moſt ſolid foundation of truth, the
neceffary inference is, that he was a perfon
Sent from God. Whether thefe miracles and
doctrines can be defended or no, yet cannot
our author be cleared from the groſſeſt falfifi-
cations, by ſo often afferting, that Jefus and
his Apoſtles grounded Chriftianity on the
proofs drawn from the Old Testament pro-
phecies, and from the allegorical typical fenfe
of thofe prophecies; when nothing is more
evident, than that the only appeal, by way of
proof, they make to thofe prophecies is to prove,
that Jefus was the person they expected, and
that the events of Jefus answered to, and
were contained in thoſe predictions.
THAT there are fome exprefs and literal
prophecies in the Old Teftament that do point
out the Meffias, and foretel his miracles, his
fufferings and death, his refurrection, his
pouring out the Spirit, his calling of the
Gentiles, his univerfal kingdom, and the like
principal events, is certain. Our author
hath not, cannot difprove it. Such are the
prophecies of Malachi iii. 1. Haggai ii. 6, &c.
Zechariah ix. 9, 10. and xii. 10. and thoſe
of
[ xiv ]
of Daniel, that I have in the following
papers endeavoured to vindicate and explain.
I have confined my felf to theſe laſt, becauſe
the Schematiſt ſeems aware of their ſtrength;
and after the most careful examination of
them that I am capable of, I am perfwaded,
that no other events but thoſe of Jefus do
answer to the circumstances and parts of
them, and that there is fuch a strange agree-
ment between the one and other, as muft
neceffarily induce any confiderate perſon to be-
lieve, either that Daniel's book was written
after the times of Jefus, or that Daniel's
predictions related to and were fulfilled in
bim.
IF there are any express prophecies that
do thus predict the Meffias, applicable to
Chriſt and to him only, the chriſtian cauſe is
abundantly fecure, and Jefus is proved to
be the true Meffias. For if there is a doubt
as to the original intention of fome other of
them, this can never deftroy the force of the
argument from real predictions and real
accomplishments; and unless this gentle-
man can give us an entire view of the
true
[ xv ]
true end and defign of the Jewish history,
and of all the prophetick messages deliver-
ed by their infpired teachers, an impartial
man will think, from other real predictions
which he fees accomplished in Chrift, that
there may be fome reference to the Meffias
intended by God in others; eſpecially when he
cannot prove there is not, but may on the
contrary difcern a wife end to be answered
by it, if there is.
IF the principal defign of the Jewiſh re-
velation, and the feparation of that people
from all others, was to keep up the know-
ledge of one God, and to be a standing memo-
rial in the world against idolatry; and if the
keeping in their minds the notion of a pro-
phet that was to come, to be like unto Mo-
fes, who fettled amongst them the worship of
the only living and true God, had
dency to keep them from idolatry, and preſerve
them in the true worship of God, it feems to
me exceeding proper and natural, that in moft
of their rites and ceremonies, their propheti-
cal meſſages, and moſt remarkable kings and
prophets and priests, there should be fome re-
any ten-
ference
[ xvi ]
ference to this future prophet; fometimes
clearer fometimes obfcurer, according to the
pleasure of God, and the circumstances and
wants of that people; and tho' the applicati-
on of fuch obfcurer paffages to the Meffias
after his coming, will not carry that force
of evidence as clear prophecies do, especially
to those who might not fo well understand
the nature of the Jewish conftitution; yet as
added to real prophecies they are a circumftan-
tial evidence, and encrease the weight of the
argument to all; and would be a real proof
to the Jews, to whom only they were made
uſe of, and who believed their reference to
the Meffias; and were therefore juſtly appli-
ed by Chrift and his Apoftles.
I am indeed abundantly convinced, from
the most impartial fearch that I am capable
of making, that the Old Teftament doth a-
bound with prophecies of the Meffias; and
that in particular the prophecies excepted a-
gainst by the author of the Literal Scheme,
do belong to him, and to him only: As he
feems to follow implicitely the Great Grotius,
in explaining them away from Chrift, I
only
[ xvij ]
only now obferve, that Grotius's explications are
many of them inconfiftent with true grammar,
and the circumstances of the perfons to whom
ke applies them; but that they do, in their
literal and obvious fenfe, and according to
fcholaftick rules of interpretation, agree to
the times and events of Jefus, and are ſub-
ftantial proofs of his being the promiſed
Meffias.
OỤRauthor himſelf obſerves, Lit. Scheme
p.338. that one thing fuppofed to be prophefied
of concerning the Meffias, was, that he should
do miracles; and this our Lord himself ac-
knowledges, when, in answer to John's dif
ciples, enquiring, Art thou he that ſhould
come, or do we look for another, he fays,
Return and fhew John thofe things which
ye do hear and fee: The blind receive
their fight, and. the lame walk, the lepers
are cleanſed, and the deaf hear, the dead
are raiſed up, and the goſpel is preached
to the poor; referring to fome plain paf-
fages of the Old Teftament. If then it
was prophefied that there should be a time,
when thefe miracles fhould be performed in
Judæa,
C
[ xviij ]
Judæa, and if it was never pretended that they
were done, from the time of the delivery of
thefe prophecies to the times of Jefus, and if
they were frequently and openly performed
by him; the confequence is, that there is pro-
phecy, and the accomplishment of prophecy,
and that the fulfilling of theſe prophecies in
Christ demonftrate, that the times Spoken of
did belong to him, because the things prophefied
of were done by him. If our author ſhould
object, that we can't prove thefe prophecies
belong to Chrift, I affirm we can, becauſe the
circumstances of them and the times of Jefus
do fo exactly tally; for here is not only a pro-
phecy in general of miracles, but the parti-
cular ones are specified; thefe were actually
performed by Christ, and of confequence thefe
prophecies are a true and exact defcription of
him, and of no other person whatsoever.
Now fince the Schematift acknowledges, that
good doctrines, confirmed by miracles, are a
Sufficient proof of a divine miſſion, and ought
to determine men to believe in fuch a perfon;
I infer, that the Schematift is obliged to
believe in Chrift as a divine meſſenger, be-
cauſe his doctrines were good, and confirmed
by miracles; and as the miracles he wrought
were
(^~
[ xix]
were the actual accomplishment of prophecies,
he is farther obliged to acknowledge, that he
was that particular prophet the Jews ex-
pected, or the promiſed Meffias; and he must
either affirm, that the literal fenfe of the
blinds receiving their fight, &c. is not that
the blind ſhall receive their
that Chrift did not caufe the
fight, &c. or
blind to fee,
the character
&c. or that theſe things fuit
of ſome other perfon; or else the inference
will be demonftratively true, that Chrift is
the Meſſiah. In like manner if it be pro-
phefied, that a certain perfon ſhould come,
and that the God of heaven ſhould ſet up an
univerfal kingdom, and give it to this perfon,
a kingdom that should stand for ever, that
the fubjects of it should be faints, and this
kingdom should never confift of any other peo-
ple; and if another prophecy affirms, that
Meffias the prince should come in the last
ſeven years of a fixed period of time, that
be should finish tranfgreffion, and bring in
everlasting righteousness, &c. that at the
end of theſe ſeven years he ſhould be cut off,
and after this the Jews fhould be deferted of
God, and at last destroyed, and made utter-
C 2
ly
[xx]
ly defolate, it will follow that if Christ came
at the time appointed, did do the things
Spoken of, was cut off, and is in poſſeſſi-
on of his kingdom, and if the Jews were
actually made defolate, according to the pre-
diction, it will follow, I fay, that Jefus
Chrift was the perſon ſpoken of, and that
he ought to be owned and acknowledged as
fuch.
IF there are some difficulties mixed with
these plain characters, the argument from
plain prophecy and real accompliſhment will
not be at all invalidated; or if other paffages
are applied to Christ out of the facred wri
tings, that do not carry fo ftrong an evidence
as the other, this can never prove that there
were no prophecies of him at all. Yea if he can
prove the Apostles miftaken in their applica-
tion of fome paffages to Chrift, which he can
never do, unless he can prove they had no
just reason to make it, he cannot prove
that Chrift is not the perſon that other plain
prophecies Spoke of, if the circumstances of
his life and character agree with them. An
impartial mind will allow the real accompliſh-
ment of certain prophecies their full weight
of
[ xxj ]
of evidence, notwithstanding there are cer-
tain difficulties in other paſſages which he
cannot explain to his entire fatisfaction.
IF then there are some clear prophecies
that have received their full accompliſhment
in Chrift, with what justice or fincerity can
the Literal Schematift affirm, p. 328. that
it doth not appear that Jefus or his Apoſtles
ever pretended to give us the literal fenfe,
but moſt probably always intended to give
us the myſtical ſenſe thereof; i. e. according
to his own interpretation, the falſe ſenſe of
it. Whether there are any clear prophecies
or not, this affertion is contrary to the whole
courfe and tenor of fcripture. Is there one
paffage in the whole New Teftament where
Christ or his Apostles ever ſay, that
fuch and fuch a prophecy might be mystical-
ly fulfilled? Is it not faid abfolutely, That
it might be fulfilled, Then was fulfilled that
which was fpoken, This is that which was
ſpoken, &c. Did not Chrift ground the ne-
ceffity of his fufferings upon that of the fcrip-
tures being fulfilled in him? Mat. xxvi. 53,
$4. Did he not begin at Mofes, and go
thro'
[ xxij ]
thro' the prophets, expounding all things in
them concerning himfelf? Luk. xxiv. 25, 26,
27, 46, 47. Did not St. Peter and St. Paul
expreſsly affert, that Jefus was the perſon to
whom all the prophets gave witnefs? And
have they given one fingle intimation, that
for these things they appealed to the my-
ftical, i. e. falſe ſenſe of ſcripture? If they
had been men of common prudence they could
not have taken a method, that would thus
have expofed their character and pretenfi-
ons amongst a nation that expected an ap-
peal to fome real prophecies, and that could
not have been convinced without feeing as
real an accompliſhment. For when the
Scribes and Pharifees told Herod that Chrift
fhould be born in Bethlehem, appealing to
that prophecy, Thou Bethlehem in the land
of Judah, &c. I fuppafe they meant Beth-
lehem literally, and not mystically. So
that however the fact be, whether there
be any real prophecies or not, yet the af
fertion of the Schematiſt is mean and falſe,
that Chriſt and his Apoftles always intend-
ed to give us, not the literal but mystical
or falfe sense of fcripture. And for this
I ap-
[ xxiij]
I appeal to any man of common under-
Standing and honesty.
'
•
INDEED, to ufe the words of our
author, p. 322. What notions of common
morality muſt he have, who pretends to
come from God, and declares that the
ſcriptures teftify of him, if the fcriptures
did not literally teftify of him, and he him-
Self, in appealing to them, wilfully appeal-
ed to the mystical or false sense of them?
What honeſty, what truth, or fincerity,
muft he have, who could begin at Mofes,
and all the prophets, and expound unto
his diſciples in all the fcriptures, the things
concerning himſelf, if neither Mofes nor
the prophets ever spoke one word about
him, and he himself expounded the fcrip
tures in a falfe fenfe? And therefore I
conclude, from the just notions our blef-
fed Lord had of morality, from the known
honesty, truth, and fincerity of his chara-
Eter, that when ever he appealed to fcrip-
ture to prove himself the Meffias, he did
appeal
>
[ xxiv ]
appeal to the literal and true fenfe of it.
And as there are many clear prophecies of
him, which received their full accomplish-
ment in him, I conclude concerning him
with Peter's confeffion, Thou art CHRIST
the SON of the LIVING GOD.
>
1
15
+
+
}
10
!
ERRAT A.
AG. 4. 1. i.
Prodeion 10. for Ezek. 1. 5. r. 1. 2. P. 23. Spaßm, for
г. Theodotion. p. 28. 1.
18. for p. 149, 150. г.
151, 152. p. 30. ad fin. for them r. it. P. 79. 1. 15. r. outof
p. 116. & paffim, for Seleuchus r. Seleucus. p. 120. 1. 2. for break
r. brake. p. 130. 1. 1. for perceptable r. perceptible p. 202. 1.3.
for Eupater r. Eupator. p. 206. 1. 11. for eight r. eighth. p. 207.
1. 2. for defferent r. different.
↓
3
A
A
VINDICATION
OF THE
ANTIQUITY, &c.
A
MONGST other prophe-
cies of the Old Teftament,
which the author of the
Literal Scheme denies to
have any literal reference
to the MESSIAH, he rec-
kons thoſe of Daniel; and to make this the
more clearly out, he hath taken a very ex-
traordinary method, and begins with endea-
vouring to prove, that they are no prophe-
cies at all; and that the book of Daniel
A
was
[ 2 ]
'was not written by the famous Daniel men-
tioned by Ezekiel; and that it contains a
manifeft reference to, or, rather, an history of
things done feveral hundred years after that
Daniel's time.
'Tis pity he hath not attempted the fame
thing, with reſpect to the writings of the
other prophets; his learning would have e-
qually qualified him for both, and I will venture
to ſay he would have had equally good fuccefs.
However it must be allowed, that he hath
acted a wife part in endeavouring to run
down the authority and antiquity of Da-
niel's book. His prophecies, if they ſhould
happen to remain prophecies, notwithſtand-
ing the vaſt diſplays of our author's skill in
criticiſm, chronology, hiftory, &c. to prove
the contrary, look fo dreadfully like prophe-
cies of a Meffiah, as will ever lie like a dead
weight on the caufe of Scepticiſm and Infi-
delity, and are ſo noble a teftimony to the
truth of Chriſtianity, as with all his borrowed
Icarning he will never be able to overthrow.
I doubt not but the Literal Schematift
thinks his attack on Daniel very formidable,
and, ſecure in his own ftrength, is out of pain
for the fuccefs of any attempts to vindi-
cate
[ 3 ]
cate his character and writings. But poffi-
bly his criticiſms may not be juft, nor his
arguments ſo very conclufive and ſtrong.
This is what I now propofe to examine, and
I affure my reader I will mifquote no au-
thorities, take no man's criticiſms upon truft,
nor affign meanings to words that I have not
carefully examined the fenfe of. Strip the
arguments of the Schematist of this falfe
drefs, and there is not a fingle objection of
any weight in his performance, againſt the
author or antiquity of Daniel's book.
OBJECT. i.
THAT the famous Daniel, mentioned by
Ezekiel, could not be the author of the book
of Daniel, feems plain.
For Ezekiel, who
prophefied in the fifth year of Jehoiachim
king of Judah, implies Daniel at that time to
be a perfon in years. Whereas the book of
Daniel Speaks of Daniel at that time, as a
youth, Literal Scheme, pag. 149. I defire
the reader would obferve, as a ſpecimen of
what he is to expect afterwards, the candor, or
at leaſt the great exactneſs, of his firſt objecti-
A 2
on.
[4]
on. To prove that Ezekiel's Daniel was
older than the author of the book of Daniel,
and that therefore he could not be the writer
of that book, he tells us, that Ezekiel, who
prophefied in the fifth year of Jehoiachim's
reign, intimates Daniel at that time to be a
perfon in years. Whereas the truth is, that
Ezekiel did not prophefy at all in Jehoiachim's
reign, but in the fifth year of the Captivity of
Jehoiachin his fon and fucceffor, Ezek. i. s.
which makes a difference of feveral years;
for Jehoiachim reigned 11 years, Jehoiachin
I; and Ezekiel prophefied in the fifth of
his captivity. So that from the fifth of Je-
hoiachim, when the Schematift makes Ezekiel
to prophesy, to the fifth of the captivity of
his fon Jehoiachin, makes at leaſt the odds
of eleven years. And if we farther confider
that the choice of the Jewish children, amongſt
which was Daniel, was made about the third
of oiakim, fee Dan. i. 1. i. e. thirteen
years before Ezekiel's prophecy, we may fafe-
ly allow that Daniel in Ezekiel was a perſon
of fome years, and yet the fame youth that
was mentioned in the book of Daniel. The
inftructions that Nebuchadnezzar gave to the
mafter of his cunuchs, was to chufe out of
the
[ 5 ]
the royal family, and the children of the no-
bility, children that were skilful in all wifdom,
cunning in knowledge, and understanding fci-
ence, and as had ability to ſtand in the king's
palace; young perfons grown up to maturi-
ty, and by their learning, good ſenſe, and
other accompliſhments, fit for the immediate
ſervices of the palace. If we therefore fup-
pofe Daniel was eighteen or twenty when
choſen by Ashpenaz, at the time of Ezekiel's
prophecy, which was thirteen years after, he
muſt have been thirty one or thirty three
years old; and having given ſuch remarkable
proofs of his piety, and of his great skill and
wiſdom, long before Ezekiel's prophecy, he
might well be mentioned by Ezekiel, as fa-
mous for his piety and wiſdom. For we find
that in the ſecond year of Nebuchadnezzar,
i. e. in the fourth year after Daniel's capti-
vity, he interpreted the king's dream, was
advanced to the government of the whole
province of Babylon, and to be the chief of
the wife men there, Dan. ii. 1, 4, 8. And as
Ezekiel was contemporary with Daniel, and
his fellow captive in Chaldea, he could not be
a ftranger either to the fame of his wifdom,
the height of his advancement, or his exem-
plary
[6]
plary piety; and therefore 'tis no wonder
that Ezekiel ſhould take particular notice of
him.
1
Our author ſeems to have imagin'd, or elſe
his remark is impertinent, that Daniel's choice
and fame was after Ezekiel's prophecy, where-
as nothing is more plain that 'twas feve-
ral years before it. His quotation from
Grotius, to prove that Ezekiel prophefied in
the fifth year of Jehoiachim, is a meer blunder;
for Grotius there fays not a word of this, but
only tells us who thofe captives were, that
Ezekiel was with, viz. thoſe who were car-
ried away with Jehoiachin, or Jeconias, who
was Jehoiachim's fon, and reigned three
months in Jerufalem.
D
OBJECT. II.
ANIEL is reprefented in the book of
Daniel, as carried captive in the Baby-
lonifh captivity, and living to the reign of
Cyrus, at the courts of the kings of Babylon
and Perfia, under whom he was for the most
part a great minifter of state; and yet the
names of the ſeveral kings of his time-are all
miſtaken
:
[7]
miſtaken in the book of Daniel. This charge
would I allow to be a very home one, if it did
not happen to be abſolutely falſe. The prin-
ces that Daniel mentions are only, Nebu-
chadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede,
and Cyrus; and of theſe, two I ſuppoſe will
paſs for the true names, viz. Nebuchadnez-
zar and Cyrus. As to the other two, our
author hath not proved, by one argument or
authority, that they are miſtaken in the book
of Daniel. That author indeed doth not call
them by the fame names that Berofus, Hero-
dotus, and others do; who alſo differ amongſt
themſelves; the Belshazzar mentioned in
fcripture, who was the laft Babylonish king,
being called by Berofus, Nabonnedus, by Hero-
dotus, Labynetus, and by Jofephus, Naboande-
lus. The Schematist must prove one or other
of theſe names to be right, before he can
prove Daniel's Belshazzar to be wrong;
tho' if he could do this, he would be far from
gaining his point, it being probable that theſe
princes had ſeveral names, which they took
on them for particular reafons. Nebuchad
nezzar the king gave to Daniel the name of
Belteſhazzar, according to the name of his
God; and 'tis highly probable, that the name
of
[8]
of Belshazzar was taken on the fame ac-
count. However, as Daniel lived in the Ba-
byloniſh court, and knew the names of the
ſeveral princes who reigned, his calling them
by different names from what other writers
do, who lived after him, and never were in
thoſe courts, is a better proof that they did
belong to them, than any thing that Berofus
and others fay to the contrary. And the
Schematift evidently begs the queſtion, when
he would prove, that the famous Daniel was
not the author of the book of Daniel; be-
cauſe the author of that book miſtakes the
names of the princes, and fo could not live
near their time; becauſe to prove him mi-
ftaken in their names, he must prove him to
live after their times, which is the very queſtion
in difpute.
But he objects farther, that particularly the
Darius ſo often mentioned, is fuppofed, from
the actions attributed to him, by fome, to be
Cyaxares II. king of Perfia; and by others to
be Nabonidus, king of Chaldea; which mi-
ftakes, Daniel, who lived at the court of thofe
kings, cannot be fuppofed guilty of. What
miſtakes Not one as yet hath there been
the ſhadow of any proof of. The learned
Prideaux
[9]
Prideaux hath, I think, demonſtrated, from
the moſt evident circumſtances, that the Da-
rius in Daniel could not be Nabonadius, the
laft Babylonish king, and fhewn the weak-
nefs of all Scaliger's arguments to prove him
ſo; but that it was Cyaxares, uncle, and after-
wards father-in-law, to Cyrus; and indeed
all that is attributed to Daniel's Darius, agrees
with the actions of Cyaxares the Mede, and
not in the leaſt to Nabonadius; and 'tis pro-
bable that Darius was an antient name of the
Median kings, and therefore retained by Cy-
axares. « Darius nomen fuit regis Medorum
"clari ac felicis, cujus nomen fibi boni ominis
"caufa impofuit, ortus & ipfe ex Medis. Grot.
"in Dan. v. 31.
As to the account given by Daniel of Ne-
buchadnezzar's madneſs, if the Schematist
can prove that Daniel's book was wrote or
publish'd in Nebuchadnezzar's time, I will
allow him to be a very uncourtly writer.
But the fuppofition it ſelf is impoffible: for
fome of the events recorded in this bock,
happened ſo late as the third of Cyrus; and
therefore, as Daniel could not have finiſhed
his book till the latter end of his own life,
and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus, fo
B
the
[10]
the inſerting ſuch a ſtory, at fo great a di-
ſtance from the time when it happened, was
not contrary to politeness and good man-
ners; and as the thing it felf was true, and
an argumenr of the providence and power of
God, the relating it was highly expedient to
do honour to the God of Ifrael, and necef-
fary on this account to his preferving the
character of a faithful hiftorian.
OBJECT. III.
THAT Daniel, who was a perfon carried
captive in the Babylonifh captivity, can-
not be fuppofed to be author of this book,
which abounds with derivations from the
Greek, which was a language unknown to
the Jews, in, and for a long while after the
captivity, and not understood by them, till
the Grecian empire prevailed, and they be-
came Hellenized.
Was every word of all this true, it would
be no objection againſt the antiquity and
authority of Daniel's book. But here alſo,
as it happens almoſt every where elſe, the af-
fertion
[ 11 ]
πρωτων ?
far from be-
ſertion it ſelf is falfe, that the book of Daniel
abounds with derivations from the Greek.
For all the words fufpected to be of Greek
original, are but ſeven, and I very much
que-
ftion whether one of them can be proved to
be derived from that language. Thus as to
Don, Grotius doth not pretend to affirm
that it comes from the Greek πρωτων, but
only fays, An hoc ex Græca vосе πржTWν
I think not; for there is
ing fuch a fimilitude in the words, as to
warrant fuch an opinion. Or if one be de
rived from the other, the Greek word may be
derived from the oriental, of which we have
an inſtance in the very next verſe : DVD macula,
an antient Hebrew word, from whence un-
doubtedly is derived the Greek
μaμos. How-
ever Rabbi Solomon writes, that in the Perfick
tongue this word fignifies the fame as w
rulers or princes. Buxtorf. in voce,
As to the next word 'WN, it appears
to me not to be from the Greek σogos, but
from an Hebrew root. And tho' Grotius
upon Dan. i. 20. fays of this word, credi-
derim vocem effe Græcam; yet with more
truth he accounts it elſewhere to be of eaſtern
derivation, 1 Mac. xii. 7. where ſpeaking
B 2
of
[ 12 ]
of the original of the Spartans, he fays they
deſcended from the Pelafgi, whoſe original
language was not Greek; that they came
from the countries bordering upon Arabia
and Syria, and that by their nearneſs to the
Greeks, they learned their language, tho' at
the fame time they retained fome remains of
their original tongue; and amongſt the words
he mentions of this kind, he enumerates
copos. Probably the word might come
from the root afflavit, becauſe theſe Per-
fons might be thought to be inſpired by the
gods; or, as others think, quod crepusculi
tempore cœlum obfervarent. Or theſe Afba-
phim might be thofe diviners, who gave an-
fwers by confulting the entrails of beafts;
for now, which is an antient Hebrew word
too old to be derived from the Greek, fig-
nifies ftercus.
As to
and wo, there is no affini-
ty of found between the first and Jacopopos;
and Grotius only fays, Forte Græca vox eft,
ya Copopo; to which argument 'tis enough
да офорова
to reply, forte non. As to the latter, Gro-
tius reckons it amongst the antient words
retained by the Pelafgi, 1 Macc. xii. 7. and
whatever fimilitude there is of found, be-
t
tween
[ 13 ]
tween it and the Greek Teraoos, there is
πέτασος,
none in ſenſe, the Chaldee word fignifying
fubligaculum, femorale, and the Greek word
tiara. That the Chaldee word cannot fig-
nify the turban, or hat, in the text, is plain,
becauſe the next word bears that fignifica-
tion, unleſs we fuppofe Daniel's meaning
to be, that they were bound in their coats,
in their hats, and in their hats.
Befides,
vo is a proper Hebrew word, in another
fenſe, uſed by Ifaiah and Jeremiah, long
before the Jews had any commerce with
the Greeks.
פסנתרין קיתרס As to the remaining words
and
our author hath not proved,
and cannot prove even theſe to be of Greek
extrad, from κιθαρα ψαλτέριον and συμφωνία.
'Tis much more probable, that theſe Greek
words were derived from the eaftern. For
nothing is more evident, than that the Greek
Mufick was derived from the eaftern na-
tions, from whom the Greeks originally
came themſelves. This appears from the ve-
ry names many of their muſical inſtruments
bear. Their σaμburn is from
vox eft orientis, fays Grotius.
supnμa pnow. Athen. l. 4. p. 175.
: Hec
Iobas Eupwv
And in
another
[14]
another place, Χρηθς αυτω Παρθές τατραχορδώ
OVTI. l. 14. p. 63.3. The Greek Tunavoy from the
Hebrew. Nabλa from the Hebrew S. Dow
αντι.
κων είναι και το τον ευρημα. Id. l. 4. p. 175. Κινυρα
from, and therefore xapa from '.
'Tis evident that the Kinnor and Cithera were
the fame kind of inftruments, for the LXX
tranſlate indifferently by zapa faλtepior,
and xivupa;
fee Gen. iv. 21.
ſee Gen. iv. 21. 1 Sam. x. s.
Ifa. v. 12. The fame inftrument is called by
the Greeks, Kinura, Lyra, Cithera, and
other names. Its invention was before the
flood, as appears from the above-cited place,
Gen. iv. 21. and was in common ufe amongſt
the Jews.
As to na, 'tis more probable that
faλTɛplov is derived from an Hebrew or Chal-
dee root, than that the Chaldee word fhould
come from this; if one of them is derived
from the other, which however doth not ap-
pear. is a known mufical term often
ufed in the Pfalms, and very likely from its
ufe, fignifies the fame as a Reft in our mu-
fick; and if I fhould conjecture that the
Greek Jame comes from it, the Schematiſt's
learning and criticisms will put me under no
concern least he fhould difprove it.
And
[15]
And laftly if I fhould allow, that
910010
is a Greek word, our author will get no ad-
vantage by the conceffion. For as the Greek
word fignifies harmony, or concert, fo Da-
niel's 99910 muft fignify an inftrument on
which different parts of mufick were plaid;
and as the ftringed inftruments came origi-
nally from the caft, probably fome Greek
might add a greater number of ftrings or
chords, to give a greater compafs or variety
of mufick, which being called συμφωνία, and
introduced into the Chaldean and Perfian
courts, retained afterwards its Greek name.
That the Grecian mufical inftruments were
of eaſtern invention is moſt evident, not only
from their retaining many of them their ori-
ginal eaſtern names, as I have fhewn above,
but from the moſt exprefs teftimonies. Thus
Athenæus, fpeaking of the Greek muſick, ſays,
Τρεις εν αυταί
την
वह
εισιν αρμονιαι, οσα και τα έθνη.
φρυγιαι και την Λυδίει παρα των Βαρβαρων
ουσας γνώθηναι τοις Έλλησιν απο των συν Πελοπο
κατελθόντων εἰς των Πελοποννησον φρύγων και
Λυδών.
μαθειν εν ταις αρμονίας ταυτας
τους Έλληνας παρα τέτων. This he confirms by
a paffage from Teleftes Selinuntius.
Πρωτο
[ 16 ]
Πρωτοι παρα κρατηρας Ελληνων εν αυλοίς
Συνοπαδοι Πέλοπος ματρος ορείας
Φρύγιον αείσαν νομον.
Το δ' οξύφωνοις πηκτίδων ψαλμοις
Κρεκον Λύδιον ύμνον.
Athen. 1. 14. P. 625, 626.
The fame author tells us from Euphorion,
that the ftringed inftruments were of very
antient invention and uſe, p. 635. and men-
tions ſeveral of the wind and chord kind, as
firſt invented by the Lydians or Phænicians,
and other eaſtern nations.
Strabo is yet more expreſs in this matter,
who tells us, Απο δε το μελος και το ρυθμό
και των οργάνων και η μεσική πασα Θρακία και
Ασιατις νενομισαι. This he fays is manifeft
from the places where the Muſes were wor-
fhipped, fuch as Pieria, Olympus, Pimpla,
Libethrum, which were antiently hills and
places in Thrace, tho' afterwards in poffeffi-
on of the Macedonians. Thoſe alſo who
were the inventors and patrons of muſick,
were Thracians; fuch as Orpheus, Mufæus,
&c. and when Afia even to India, was made
facred
[ 17 ]
facred to Bacchus, εκείθεν και την πολλίων
μουσικών μεταφερουσι, their mufick for the grea-
teft part was derived from thence. Particu-
larly the ea, he fays, was by a certain.
author, callid Ασατις; and another τις αυλές
Βρεκύντιος καλεί και Φρυγίας.
This he farther
thews from their very names. Των οργάνων ενια
βαρβάρως ωνόμαςαι. ναβλα και σαμβύκη η και
βαρβιτος και μαγαδες, και άλλα πλείω. And
then he adds, Αθηναίοι δ' ωσπερ περί τα αλλα
φιλοξενώντες διατελέσι, έτω και περι της θεάς
Πολλα γαρ των ξενικων ιερων παρεδέξαντο. That
the Athenians are not only beholden for
there, and other things, to foreign nations,
but even for their very gods, and facred
rites.
Plato alfo intimates the fame thing, and
introduces Socrates as thus fpeaking, Εννοω γαρ
οτι πολλα οι Ελληνες ονομαία, αλλως τε και οι υπο
τοις Βαρβαροις οικεντες, παρα των Βαρβάρων
εληβασι. Plato in Cratyl. that the Greeks
borrowed many words, from foreign nations.
Many other paffages might be mentioned
to this purpoſe, from other unquestionable
authorities.
C
The
[ 18 ]
The Jews, who were defcended from the
Caldeans, had undoubtedly their muſical inftru-
ments partly from them, and partly from the
Ægyptians, amongſt whom they fojourned;
and from the Phenicians and Arabians, to
whom they were near neighbours. And as
Greece it ſelf was peopled by colonies from
the eaſt, the Grecian mufick muft neceffarily
be of eaſtern original. This the Romans
honeftly acknowledge of their mufick.
Fam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes,
Et linguam & mores & cum Tibicine Chordas
Obliquas, nec non Gentilia Tympana fecum
Vexit.
JUVEN. Sat. iii.
And Livy obferves, that after the wars with
Antiochus Magnus, Tunc Pfaltria, fambucif-
triæ, & convivalia ludorum oblectamenta, ad-
dita epulis. Lib. 39. cap. 6. The fame thing
is intimated by many other of the Roman
hiſtorians, who complain of the pomp and
luxury that were introduced into Rome after
the Afiatick war.
But not to infift on theſe things; what if
it ſhould be allowed, that theſe three words
are
[ 19 ]
are all of them of Greek original, yet will
not this overthrow the antiquity of Daniel's
book. For 'tis plain, that they are the names
of muſical inftruments, that were made uſe
of in the Babylonian and Perfian courts. And
if they were of Grecian invention, which
however is not probable, might they not be
introduced into thoſe eaſtern courts, and re-
tain their Greek names, with Chaldee termi-
nations? If Daniel had wrote his book in
Judea, the objection would have been of
fome weight. But the queſtion is not whe-
ther the Jews underſtood the Greek language,
but whether the Chaldeans and Perfians did.
For Daniel was prime miniſter in the Chal-
dean and Perfian courts; and therefore when
ſpeaking of the mufical inftruments then in
uſe, muſt call them them by the names they
were known by, whether they were derived
from the Greek or Chaldee languages. And
'tis remarkable, that there is not one word in
all the book of Daniel, pretended to be of
Greek extract; but in that part of it which
is written in Chaldee, and treats moftly of
the Babylonish and Perfian affairs.
C 2
The
[ 20 ]
The Schematist would have attempted
fomewhat to the purpoſe, had he endea-
voured to prove that at this time there was
no commerce between the Eastern nations
and the Greeks. But indeed the contrary is
evident enough. For by their learning, and
great men, the Greeks had render'd them-
felves famous amongſt the nations of Aſia.
Grotius tells us, Jam ante Nebuchadonofori,
tempora celebris erat Thaletis & aliorum qui
0001 dicti funt fama. Vid. Grot. in Dan. i.
σοφοι
20. And in another place. Dan. iii. s. Jam
ante Danielem magnæ & Æolum & Ionum
colonia in Afiam deducta Gracas voces illis
in locis fparferant. Herodotus tells us, that
the Greek popo flocked to the court of
Cræfus, at Sardis, before his wars with Cyrus.
Απικνέονται ες Σάρδις ακμάζεσας πλεπω αλλο
τε οι πάντες εκ της Ελλάδος σοφιςαι, οι τέτον τον
χρόνον ετυγχανον έοντες, και δη και Σολων ανηρ
Alava. Lib. I. c. 20. The Babylonians
and Lydians were neighbouring nations, and
neither of them unknown to the Grecians.
For as before the wars with Cyrus, they were
at the court of Crafus, fo before this, they
had learnt their skill in geometry from the
Babylonians.
[ 21 ]
Babylonians. Πολον μεν γαρ, και γνωμονα
και του δυώδεκα μέρεα της ημερης παρα Βαβυ-
λωνιων εμαθον Ελληνης. Herod. lib. II. c. 109.
The fame author tells us, that almoſt all the
names of the gods came from Ægypt into
Greece, and that the Grecians borrowed their
religious rites and cuftoms from the Egyp
tians, Lib. II. c. so, SI. This is proof
enough of the intercourfe that the Grecians
maintained with the eaſtern nations, to whom
they were beholden for their mufick, reli-
gion, and gods. Strabo allo fays, Συνεβη δε
τοις Πέρσαις ενδοξοτάτοις γενος των Βαρβάρων
παρα τοις Έλλησι. That the Perfians were
beſt known of all foreign Nations to the
Greeks. Homer alfo makes mention of the
Phænicians and Sydonians.
Σιδόνες πολυδαιδαλοι ευ ησκησαν
Φοινικες δ' αγον ανδρες επ' ηεροειδα ποντον.
1
Iliad. ¥. v.. 743, 744.
And frequently of the Egyptians,
Πεμπαιοι δ' Αιγυπίον ευρρειτην ικομεσα
Στησα δ' εν Αιγυπτίω ποταμω νέας ἀμφιελισσας.
Odyl. Ξ 257, 258.
Theſe
[ 22 ]
Theſe teftimonies are abundant proof that the
Greeks were very early acquainted with the
Ægyptians, Phenicians, Babylonians, Per-
fians, and other nations.
Upon the whole therefore I leave the world
to judge of the conduct of the Schematist, who
thus roundly affirms, without offering any proof
for his affertion, that the book of Daniel
abounds with derivations from the Greek;
and would advife him for his own credit,
whenever he writes about Hebrew or Greek
words, to underſtand ſomething of them him-
felf, and not to truft implicitly the fecond
learning of any author whatſoever. The
impartial part of mankind will not entertain
the moſt favourable opinion of a writer, that
is confident in matters he doth not under-
ftand, but will be apt to fay, Non hanc im-
prudentiam, aut cafum, fed inertiam, negligen-
tiam, fatuitatem nominari oportere. Cicer.
de Invent.
*
骂
​OBJECT
[ 23 ]
*
IT
*
OBJECT. IV.
3
doth not appear, that the book of Da-
niel was tranflated into Greek, when the
other books of the Old Teftament were, which
are attributed to the LXX; the preſent Greek
verfion, inferted in the LXX, being taken
from Theodofion's tranflation of the Old
Teftament made in the ſecond century of Chrift.
To which I answer, that if this omiffion
proves any thing, it will only prove, that it
ſhould ſeem that the book of Daniel was not
of that account with the Jews, as the other
books of the prophets were, to allow this
objection the moſt that can be made
of it; not that this book is not as an-
tient as it is pretended to be, which is the
the point in queftion. The book might be
extant, tho' there might be proper reafons for
not tranflating it into Greek. This Gen-
tleman himſelf hath obferved from Maimon-
des, p. 153. Unanimo confenfu gens noftra re-
tulit librum Danielis inter libros Hagiographos,
non vero propheticos. And from Reland he
་
!
remarks
[ 24 ]
remarks, Danielem vulgo Judai numero pro-
phetarum eximunt, non quia nimis clare
tempus adventus Meffiæ prædixit, uti multi
putant, fed quia revelationem a Deo ipfi fac-
tam, fomnium vocant.
It is well known that the Jews divided their
תורה נביאים .holy Scriptures into three parts
.כתובים
The law, the prophets, and
thoſe other books of the Old Teftament,
which are called Hagiographi; to which di-
viſion our Saviour ſeems to refer, Luk. xxiv.
44. Under this laft divifion are contained
the book of Pfalms, Proverbs, Job, Daniel,
Efdras, Nehemiah, Chronicles, Solomon's
Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclefiaftes, and
Hefter. From hence 'tis evident, that they did
not make this divifion, becauſe they doubted
of the antiquity or authority of theſe books;
feveral of them being unquestionably of the
greateſt antiquity, and confeffedly written un-
der divine inſpiration. Grotius, in his Pré-
face to his Comment on Ifaiah, tells us, Da-
videm Hebræi Prophetis non afcribunt, non
magis quam Danielem, non quod non multa ex-
imia prædixerint, fed quia vitæ genus prophe-
ticum non fectabantur; fed alter rex erat,
alter
[ 25 ]
alter Satrapa. And as to Daniel in particu-
lar, Dr. Prideaux obferves, Vol. I. p. 163.
from Maimonides, and Kimchi, That altho
he had divine revelations delivered to him,
yet it was not in the prophetick way, but by
dreams and viſions of the night, which they
reckon to be the most imperfect manner of re-
velation, and below the prophetick. And I
may add with refpect to Daniel, that 'tis no
wonder that the Jews fhould not have the
fame high opinion of him, as they have of
their other prophets, out of their averfion to
Chriſtianity, he having fo exprefly fixed the
time of the Meffiah's coming, and declared
that he ſhould be actually cut of: This is fuch
an argument of the truth of Chriftianity, that
they can never get over, but either by
denying the antiquity or authority of the
book, or by making other ungrounded ridi-
culous fuppofitions, that need no refutation.
But after all, I take the objection it ſelf,
its not being tranſlated into Greek, when
the other books were, which are attributed
to the LXX, to be of no weight; becauſe it
doth not appear, that the Old Teſtament was
ever at once tranſlated into Greek. Arifteas
D
his
[ 26 ]
1
his account is undoubtedly a forgery, and
deferves not the leaſt credit. Or if it be of
any weight, he fpeaks himſelf of the tranfla-
tion of the law only, without the leaſt inti-
mation of any thing farther. And Jofephus
expreffly declares, Proem. §. 3. 8 de jazz
πασαν εκείνο έφθε λαβειν την ανατραφήν, ἀλλ᾽
αυτα μονα τα τε νομε παρέδοσαν οι πεμφθέντες
επι την εξηΓησιν εις την Αλεξανδρειαν. The
interpreters that went into Alexandria,
did not tranſlate all the fcriptures, but the
law only. And the fame he fays again in
his fecond book againſt Appion, §. 4. And
indeed this is evident enough from the verfi-
on it ſelf, that it was not all made by the
fame perſons, or at the fame time; for the
ftyle is not only different, but the fame words
have often times a different, and ſometimes
a quite contrary interpretation. No argu-
ment therefore can be drawn against the an-
tiquity of the book of Daniel, from its not
being tranflated into Greek, when the other
books were, which are attributed to the LXX,
becauſe they only tranflated the law, and no
other books of the Old Teftament. How-
ever, that there was an antient verfion of
Daniel
[ 27 ]
Daniel, feems evident. Justin Martyr, Cle-
mens Alexandrinus, Eufebius Præp. l.1. Irena-
us, and almoſt all the antient chriftian writers
affirm, that the whole Old Teftament was
tranflated by the LXX; and tho' this will not
prove the tranſlation to have been made by
them, yet it abundantly proves there was an
entire verfion of the Old Teftament extant;
neither is there any fingle evidence to the
contrary. Aquila, Symmachus, and Theo-
dofion, tranflated Daniel as well as the other
books of the Old Teftament. And as they
made their tranflations, becaufe of the cor-
ruptions of that, afcribed to the LXX, 'tis
probable they would have tranflated no other
books than what were before tranflated, and
efteemed by Jews and Chriftians authentick;
or at leaſt that if the tranflation of Daniel
had been entirely new, that Origen in his fa-
mous edition of the Bible, and Jerom, would
have taken particular notice of it. Indeed
Jerom plainly enough intimates the contrary,
that there was an antient verfion of Daniel
extant, Praf. in Dan. For after having
faid, Danielem prophetam juxta LXX inter-
pretes, domini falvatoris eccleça non legunt,
D 2
utentes
[ 28 ]
utentes Theodofionis editione, he adds, Et
hoc cur acciderit nefcio
five fub nomine
eorum, ab alio nefcio quo, non fatis Chaldeam
linguam fciente, editus eft liber, Hoc
unum affirmare poffum, quod multum a veri-
tate difcordet, & recto judicio repudiatus fit.
'Tis evident that Jerom, in this paffage, fup-
poſes there was a Greek verfion of Daniel;
and that it must have been an antient one is
plain, becauſe it was added to the Verfion
fuppofed to be made by the LXX, and uſher-
ed, as he imagines, into the world under
their authority, and name. And the true
reaſon why Theodofion's tranflation of Daniel
was read in the chriftian church was, becauſe
'twas better than any before extant.
OBJECT. V.
'HE next objection is of a very extraor-
TH
dinary kind, p. 149, 150. and nothing
more than a plain begging the queſtion, viz.
That divers matters of fact are spoken of in
the book of Daniel, in the way of prophecy,
with the clearness of Hiſtory
which clear-
ness
[29]
nefs made Porphyry thinks, Daniel's books to be
written about the time of Antiochus Epipha-
nes, as the nature of things would determine
any one to do, in respect to fuch clear prophe-
cies, the exiſtence whereof, before the event
referred to by them, had no proof. Here he
quotes Grotius in commendation of Porphy-
ry's judgment, and I wish he had quoted at
large the whole paffage: Since he hath not
thought fit to do it, and there is a very re-
markable paffage in Grotius, concerning Por-
phyry's judgment, I fhall quote it for his cor-
rection, and the reader's edification. After
he hath mentioned Porphyry's judgment, that
Daniel's book was written after the events
recorded in it, he adds, Quod quam fit impu-
dens alibi oftendimus. The very ſuppoſition
was an argument of his incorrigible impu-
dence. But not to apply and infift on this, tho'
'tis not fair to quote paffages from authors by
halves, I would obferve, that the queftion
is, whether Daniel's book, which contains
fuch and fuch paffages, was written by Da-
niel. Our author, to prove that it was not,
argues, it could not; becauſe it contains thefe
paffages in difpute : i. e. Daniel's book of
pro-
phecies
[ 30 ]
phecies could not be written by Daniel, be-
cauſe it contains Daniel's prophecies. This
is a very curious method of proceeding. If
he would have acted the part of a fair and
reaſonable adverfary, he fhould have proved
prophecy an impoffible thing; either that there
is no God, or that if there is, he doth not con-
cern himſelf about the affairs of nations and
kingdoms; or that if he doth, he knows no-
thing before it comes to pafs; or that he hath
no wife purpoſes to answer by over-ruling
the affairs of the world, and executing the
purpoſes of his own good pleaſure; or that
if he hath, he cannot diſcover theſe purpoſes
to men; or that if he could, there is no wife
and kind purpoſe to be anſwered by fuch a
revelation; or that if there is, thoſe to whom
he vouchsafes a revelation cannot difcover it
to others. Till he can prove the abfurdity
of theſe things, I fhall be credulous enough
to believe there is a God, the maker and
governor of the world, a wife intelligent
being, that over-rules all things according to
the purpoſes of his own wifdom and good,
nefs. And this perfwafion will fully con-
vince me of the poffibility of prophecy, as I
can eaſily diſcern the neceffity and uſe of
them.
[ 31 ]
This whole fifth objection ought therefore
to paſs only as an argument, that our author is
in the infidel ſcheme of Porphyry, quod quam
impudens fit, faith Grotius, alibi oftendimus ;
but is no proof that Daniel's book hath
no prophecies, i. e. was written after the
events faid to be prophefied of. If prophe-
cies are poffible, Daniel might be favoured
with prophetick revelations as well as any
other, and theſe prophecies may be clearer or
obfcurer according to the pleaſure of him
that reveals them, and the ends for which
fuch prophecies are defigned. And therefore
the clearness of Daniel's prophecies is no
proof that his writings were not truly pro-
phetical, or that, in our author's words, he is
like the author of the ſecond book of apocry.
phal Efdras, who appears acquainted with
things done after the times of Jefus; and who
tho' he perfonates Efdras, and writes of things
in the way of prophecy, yet his work is fup-
pofed to have been wrote after the things fpok-
en of in the way of prophecy came to paſs.
The plain language of this is, that the author
of the book of Daniel is an apocryphal wri-
ter; and he meanly fuppofes, without any
folid
[ 32 ]
folid proof, or one fingle antient unprejudi-
ced writer to ſupport him, that his prophecies
are all relations of paſt events, and that be-
cauſe his prophecies are clear. i. e. his pro-
phecies are not prophecies, becauſe clear pro-
phecies. This is ſuch a ſcandalous begging the
queſtion, as any impartial reader muſt diſcern,
and diſcern with indignation and contempt.
To have proved Daniel's book apocryphal,
like the ſecond book of apocryphal Efdras,
he ought to have fixed the precife time when
the true writer of Daniel lived; to have
pointed out the feveral marks that 'prove the
faid book of Efdras to be written after the
events he ſpeaks of, and to have fhewn the
fame, or like evident marks, in the book of
Daniel. Here indeed his proofs ought to
have been peculiarly ftrong, becauſe the di-
fpute is about a prophet, and a book contain-
ing ſeveral fuppofed prophecies: but our
Schematift hath taken a very eaſy and plea-
fant method, and proves that Daniel's book
was written after the things he prophecies of,
becauſe his prophecies are fo clear; and becauſe
be feems like the author of the fecond book of
apocryphal Efdras, who tho' he perfonates
Efdras,
[ 33 ]
Efdras, and writes of things in the way of
prophecy, yet his work is fuppofed to have
been wrote after the things spoken of, in the
way of prophecy, came to pass.
of arguments there is no refifting.
Such kind
But to do juftice to Daniel, and the other
prophets, I would farther obferve, that Da-
niel's relation of things, down to the death of
Antiochus Epiphanes, is not more clear and
exprefs, than many predictions of the other
prophets, that were before him. Many of
Ifaiah's prophecies are delivered in the plain-
eft terms, without any ambiguity or darkneſs.
Such are the prophecies of the deftruction of
Senacharib's army, and his own death, Ifa.
xxxvii. The deftruction of Jerufalem by the
Chaldeans, and the captivity of the Jews,
foretold in the time of Hezekiah, Ifa. xxxix.
The reign of Cyrus, and the deliverance of
the Jews under him, Ifa. xlv. The deftruction
of Babylon, by the Medes and Elamites un-
der Cyrus, and the countries being turned
into a poffefion for the bitterns, and pools of
water, Ifa. xxi. 2. xiv. 23. that in one day
they ſhould be puniſhed with lofs of children
and widowhood, Ifa. xlvii. 9. which came to
paſs in the laſt ſiege of it by Darius, when
E
the
7
[ 34 ]
the inhabitants of Babylon flew their own
children and wives, that they might be able
to hold out a longer fiege. That the time
´of its diſtreſs ſhould be upon the accompliſh-
ment of Judah's captivity, and that it ſhould
be made a perpetual defolation, and cover-
ed with a multitude of waters, Jer. xxv. 12.
li. 42. The ruin of its idols, and pillage
of its temples, Ifa. xxi. 9. Jer. li. 44, 47,
52, accompliſhed by Xerxes. The deftructi-
on of Tyre, Ifa. xxiii. Ezek. xxvi, xxvii,
xxviii, chapters, fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar,
and Alexander the great, with many others
that might be mentioned. In a word, the
four books of [the prophets, from Iſaiah to
the laſt of them, are full of the plaineft pre-
dictions, and abound with prophecies ex-
preffed with greater clearness than the very
cleareſt of Daniel's can ever be pretended
to be. So that the infinuation it felf is falfe,
that Daniel's prophecies are written with pe-
culiar clearness, and it may rather be faid of
other prophets, that their predictions are de-
livered with the clearness of hiftory. As to
thefe, I ſuppoſe alfo, our impartial author
will make the fame fuppofition, that they
were written after the event; a fuppofition
that
[ 35 ]
that all candid and impartial readers will
defpife.
But before I difmifs this objection, I can-
not but take notice of a paffage, which as
it ſtands, is neither fenfe nor English: Which
clearness made Porphyry thinks Daniel's books
to be written about the times of Antiochus
Epiphanes, as the nature of things would de-
termine any one to do, in respect to fuch clear
prophecies, the existence whereof, before the
event referred to by them, had no proof. I
will not infift on fo fmall a matter, as how
Porphyry was made thinks. His thinks
was an argument of his impudence. 'Tis
the latter part of the ſentence I am at a loſs
about the meaning of, when he tells us, that
the nature of things would determine any
one to do, in respect to clear prophecies,
the existence whereof, before the event re-
ferred to by them, had no proof. If by the
existence whereof, he means the exiſtence of
which prophecies had no proof, the aſſerti-
on is not true; there having been many
prophecies exifting, i. e. delivered, before
the events referred to by them; yea, there
are ſuch proofs of the exiſtence of Daniel's
prophecies, before the events ſpoken of came
E 2
to
[36]
to paſs, which he is not able to overthrow.
If he means, that the reafon of things would
determine us to judge all clear prophecies
made after the event, becauſe there can be
no proof of the exiſtence of the things re-
ferred to, before the event it ſelf happens,
or the things prophefied of come to paſs,
this will be an objection of ſome weight;
but as 'tis unfupported by him, needs not
here any reply.
I fhall only obſerve, that as certain
future events depend on the wife and
powerful determination and direction of the
fupreme caufe, there may be a real certainty
that fuch events fhall exift, long before they
come to pass. For if God knows the pur-
poſes of his own will, he may make fome
of them, more or lefs, known to men. If
for inftance, it was the purpoſe of God to
fuffer a certain prince, at ſuch a ſeaſon, to vex
and oppress the Jewish nation, he might give
fome intimation of this matter to that peo-
ple for certain wife purpoſes. And after
fuch an intimation that event would be cer
tain, tho' the prediction fhould be many
years before the exiftence of that event.
And I think 'tis not very difficult to point
out
[ 37 ]
out the wife reafon why the perfecution
under Antiochus was foretold; viz. to keep
the Jews from utter difpair under that fevere
ſcourge, and to excite them to a more vigo-
rous uſe of the proper means for their reco-
very and fafety; fince the fame prophecy
that foretold their diftrefs, foretold alfo their
deliverance, and the actual coming of the
expected Meffiah. So that when their affairs
ſeemed moft defperate, by the prophanation
of the altar and temple, and the refolution
of Antiochus to reduce the Jews to the
worſhip of the Grecian gods, or to extir-
pate their nation; they had yet ſome ground
for hope, and a certain profpect of future
deliverance. The reader will obferve, that
I have, in this argument, proceeded upon the
fuppofition of the exiſtence of a God: as
the Schematift hath not yet attacked this
principle, I ought in juftice to take his belief
of it for granted. But I proceed.
*
OBJECT.
[ 38 ]
D
OBJECT. VI.
•
ANIEL is omitted amongst the pro-
phets, recited in Ecclefiafticus, where
it feems proper to have mentioned him as a
Jewiſh prophet-author, had the book under
his name been received as a canonical book by
the Jews, when Ecclefiafticus was publiſhed,
which is faid to be in 132 before Chrift.
I answer, that it may feem perhaps proper
to our Schematist, that the Author of Eccle-
fiafticus fhould have mentioned him as a Jew-
iſh prophet-author; and I fhould have been
of his mind, had that author been giving an
exact catalogue of the Jewish canonical wri-
ters. But the contrary to this is evident. In
the forty fourth chapter he gives us an ac-
count of what fort of perfons he intended
to praiſe, famous men and our fathers that
begat us, vcr. I. fuch by whom the lord
wrought great power; fuch as did bear rule
in their kingdoms, declaring prophecies, and
leaders of the people by their counfels; fuch
whofe feed fhould remain for ever, and with
whofe feed should continually remain a good
inberi-
[ 39 ]
inheritance. And accordingly he mentions
feveral famous men recorded in the Jewiſh
writings, without any order of time, or re-
gard to their being Jewish prophets-authors;
fuch as Noah, Aaron, Phineas, Caleb, and
others, who are never pretended to be in-
ſpired writers; and, on the other hand, he hath
omitted Job, Daniel, Efdras, and others,
who either were allowed to be infpired wri-
ters, or who, tho' famous in their time, did
not come within his general deſign and in-
tention; and when he mentions Jeremiah
and Ezekiel, he omits Ifaiah, and only
ſpeaks of him by the bye in the commenda-
tion of Ezekias.
'Tis not, I think, very difficult to affign a
probable reaſon of his omitting to mention
Daniel, tho' a prophet, and a prophet au-
thor, viz. becauſe Daniel's character was in
moſt reſpects different from thoſe he inten-
ded to celebrate. He feems to have been
an eunuch, made fo upon his being carried
captive, and therefore he had no memorial,
viz. of feed, with whom was to remain a
good inheritance. Tho' he was a prophet,
yet was it not in the Jewish kingdom, nor
did he by his prophecies or councils lead the
people
[ 40 ]
people as the other prophets did; and as he
was a miniſter of ſtate only to the Babyloni-
an and Perfian kings, it was not fo proper
to mention him amongſt thoſe other wor-
thies, by whofe miniftry the Lord delivered
his people Ifrael, and directed them which
went right.
But now on the other hand, when old
Mattathias was encouraging his fons to be
zealous for the law, and to hazard their
lives for the covenant of their fathers, and
fets before them fignal inftances of the won-
derful preſervation God had afforded to thoſe
who maintained their innocency, and put
their truft in him, Daniel could not well
be omitted, fuppofing the hiftory of him in
the book of Daniel was true; and therefore
the good old man particularly mentions him,
as the laſt inftance of this kind on record in
their facred writings.
So that no argument can be gathered from
Daniel's not being mentioned by the author
of Ecclefiafticus; the character given of him
by Mattathias, and his being mentioned by
Ezekiel long before, is proof enough of his
antiquity, and needs not the confirmation of
the other writer. And the Schematift may
as
[ 41 ]
as well inferr, that there were no other
prophet-writers, or great men, amongſt the
Jews, befides thoſe mentioned in Ecclefiafti
cus, becauſe he hath not named them, as that
Daniel was no prophet writer, becauſe not
mentioned amongſt the worthies of that au-
thor. Indeed theſe negative arguments prove
nothing, unleſs the true reaſons of theſe
omiffions can be pointed out by him that
urges them.
As to Mr. Whifton's ſuſpicions, I will not
be at all anſwerable for them: I ſee no reaſon
to think that the Jews have eraſed Daniel's
name out of the catalogue, or dropped a clauſe
in the book of Ecclefiafticus, with a view of
diminiſhing the credit of Daniel, as not wor
thy the name of a prophet. For, as hath
been already faid, the writer of that book
doth not appear to have the leaſt view of re-
counting the authors of the Jewiſh canon;
for the canon of ſcripture is not once men-
tioned, nor the authors of ſeveral of the
books of the Old Teftament ſo much as
named, any more than the books them-
felves.
F
OBJECT.
[ 42 ]
OBJECT. VII.
ONATHAN, who fometime before Je-
Jo
This
fus, is fuppofed to have made the Chal-
dee paraphraſes, we now have on the
books of the prophets, has omitted Daniel;
from whence it should feem the book of Da-
niel was not of that account with the Jews,
as the other books of the prophets were.
may be allowed, tho' the omiffion of the
Chaldee paraphraft doth not prove it. But
what will this prove against the antiquity of
the book itself? It might be an antient book,
and of the famous Daniel's writing, if Jo-
nathan did not efteem it, or could not un-
derſtand it, or would not tranflate it. But
'tis probable, that there was an ancient Tar-
gum on this book, nor is it any argument to
the contrary, that we have none now ex-
tant. For, as Dr. Prideaux obferves from
Laufden, it was long fuppofed, that there
were no Targums on the two books of Chro-
nicles, becauſe none fuch were known, till
they were lately publiſhed at Ausburg in
Germany, A.D. 1680. & 1683.
The para.
phrafe
[ 43 ]
brafe on Daniel may hereafter alfo come
› light.
But if there never was any Targum on this
ook, a very good reafon may be affigned
or it. The other books of the Old Teſtament
ad Chaldee paraphrafes, or verfions, for the
le of the Jews, who had loft the know-
edge of the original Hebrew, by their fe-
enty years captivity in Chaldea. But as the
reateſt part of the book of Daniel is written
1 the Chaldee language, the Jews needed
ot a Chaldee paraphrafe to underſtand it.
deed the omiffion of a Commentator, Tar-
umift, or Tranflator, if fuch an omiffion can
e proved, may be accounted for by many
ther reaſons, than the fuppofition that the
ooks not paraphraſed or tranflated were not
xtant in their times; a fuppofition that
ught never to take place, but where it can
e fupported by the ſtrongeſt probabilities and
rguments.
F 2
OBJECT.
[ 44 ]
OBJECT. VIII.
THAT part of Daniel which is written
in Chaldee, is near the style of the old
Chaldee paraphrafes, which being compofed
many hundred years after Daniel's time, muſt
have a very different style, from that uſed
in his time; and therefore that part could
not be written at a time very remote from
the date of the eldest of thofe Chaldee para-
phrafes. And on this head he cites Pri-
deaux, and bishop Kidder, with what fin-
cerity and honefty I fhall leave my reader to
judge. Dr. Prideaux, Vol. ii. p. 535. fays,
"That part of Daniel and Ezra which is
"in Chaldee, is the trueſt ſtandard, whereby
c
"to try the purity of the Chaldee language.
"For this language, as well as all others,
<<
being in a conftant flux, and in every
age deviating from what it was in the
"former; it follows from hence, that the
"farther any Chaldee writing doth in its
"ftyle differ from that antient ftandard,
"the later certainly it is; and the nearer
.
« it
[ 45 ]
" it comes to it, we may as certainly con-
«clude, the antienter it is. But no Chal-
"dee writing now extant coming nearer to
"the ftyle of what is written in that lan-
guage by Daniel and Ezra, than the Tar-
cr
“
gum of Onkelos; this, to me, proves his Tar-
gum, of all others, to be the moſt antient.
Biſhop Kidder, Pref. to the 3d Vol. of
his Demonſtration, ſays to the ſame purpoſe.
He endeavours to prove that Jonathan's Tar-
gum on the Pentateuch is not ſo old as
"that of Onkelos, 1. From the ftyle; that
" of Onkelos is biblical and terfe; it comes
near to that part of Daniel, which is writ-
"ten in the Chaldee language."
66
It is evident that both theſe great men ſuppoſe
the antiquity of Daniel's Chaldee, and look
on it as the ſtandard of all other Chaldee; and
that becauſe Onkelos comes near to it, therefore
they infer his Targum to be the moſt antient.
The impartial author of the Literal Scheme
ſays, and quotes Prideaux and Kidder as his
vouchers, that Daniel's Chaldee is near the
ſtyle of the Chaldee paraphrafes. Let every
man judge of a writer that can make fuch
an apparently falfe quotation. Again Pri-
deaux
[46]
deaux and Kidder prove that Onkelos is the
oldeſt paraphraſe, becauſe it agrees with the
ſtandard Chaldee of Daniel; our author, that
Daniel is not much older than theſe para-
phraſes, becauſe it is written near the ſtyle
of them. Such a conduct needs no animad-
verfion, fuch an argument no reply. The
truth is, that the Chaldee of Daniel being
the ſtandard of that language, and the He-
brew of Daniel written with the exactneſs,
and in the ftyle of other Hebrew writers,
proves the antiquity of his book, and that
it was written at the time when Daniel
lived.
OBJECT. IX.
THE Jews were great compofers of books
under the names of their renowned pro-
phets, to do themselves honour, and particu-
larly under the name of Daniel and the
book of Daniel feems compofed to do honour to
the Jews in the perſon of Daniel, in making
a Few Superiour to the Chaldeans, magicians,
aftrologers, and wife men of Babylon. Every
reader
[ 47 ]
reader must certainly be conviced by fuch
ftrong and nervous arguments. The point is
to prove Daniel's book a compofition later
than the time of the famous Daniel, and
made about the time of Onkelos his Targum.
And the Schematift's argument ftands thus:
The Jews were compofers of.. books under
the names of their prophets, to do them-
felves honour ;
niel feems compofed to do honour to the
Jews. What then? How doth this prove
it written after Daniel's time? Why might
not ſome Jew in the captivity, or a little
after it, compofc it to do honour to the
Jews? Or by what rules of Logick doth it fol-
low, that becauſe they compofed fome books
under Daniel's name, that therefore the only
genuine book that Daniel ever wrought, was
compoſed by the Jews after him? The Sche-
matift fhould first prove the book of Daniel
not to be antient and genuine, and then his
Seemings would appear with a much better
grace; whereas, now they are meer vifiona-
ry and dreaming. Or if this cunning con-
jecture about the compofition of Daniel's
book proves any thing, it will prove that
none of the writings of the Jews were com-
pofed
therefore the book of Da-
[ 48 ]
poſed by thoſe perfons whofe names they
bear, which I would feign have this feeming
writer attempt to fhew, as what would be
of mighty ſervice to the cauſe of infidelity
and ſcepticiſm.
But methinks the Schematift hath furniſhed
us with an argument, that ſeems to prove
his whole conjecture to be wrong. The
Jews were great compofers of books to do
themſelves honour, and particularly under
the name of Daniel. Now there can be but
one poffible reaſon affigned for this, viz.
the high opinion they had of Daniel, as a
really inſpired prophet and writer, and that by
prefixing his name to their own compofitions,
they might gain the greater credit and authority
to them. The compofers of the Song of the
three children, and of the hiftories of Sufan-
nah and the elders, and of Bell and the 'Dra-
gon, who ever they were, took Daniel for a
prophet-author, and to be as antient as the
author of Daniel's book makes him to be.
For they inferted the Song of the three chil
dren into the 3d chapter of Daniel's book,
after ver. 33. prefixing the hiſtory of Su-
Jannah to the beginning, and adding the hi-
ftory of Bel and the Dragon to the end of
thet
it ;
[ 49 ]
it; and affert the feveral things thofe three
pieces contain, to happen under the reigns
of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus. Upon this
very account Porphyry objected againſt the
antiquity of Daniel's book, and affirmed
it to be the comment of fome Hellenifti-
cal Jew, from the allufion there is in the
hiſtory of Susannah, to the Greek words σχίσαι
and pα, imagining it to be a part of
πρισαι,
Daniel's hiftory; which objection Eufebius
and Apollinarius juftly anſwered, by ſaying,
this hiſtory was not in the Hebrew copies of
Daniel's book, but a fpurious compofition
of one Abacuc of the tribe of Levi; and
therefore Jerom himſelf marked theſe fables
with an in his verfion of the book of
Daniel. Vid. Hieron. Proem. in Dan. So
that theſe compofitions under the name of
Daniel, and as added to his book, are ſo far
from proving it to be a like ſpurious compo-
fition, that it proves the contrary, viz. that
the Jews eſteemed Daniel to be a real pro-
phet, and the book of Daniel to be genuine
and antient.
Farther, whereas the Schematift afferts,
that the book of Daniel feems compofed to do
honour to the Jews; this is falfe and injurious.
G
There
[ 50 ]
There is not one paffage in the whole book
that appears to have this view. Daniel in
the 9th chapter very freely confeffes of the
Jewish nation, that they had been a very
wicked and rebellious people, in the moft
aggravated and moving terms, and the au-
thor of that book feems to have no other
view, but to do honour to the God of If-
rael, by relating ſuch things as abundantly
proved, that he could perform thoſe mighty
wonders, explain thoſe dark matters, and
foretel thoſe future events, by dreams and
other ways, which the falfe gods of the Chal
deans could never do. And therefore Daniel
conſtantly aſcribes all his predictions, not to
himſelf, but to that God whom he ferved
and trufted in.
And to conclude, his faying that the book
of Daniel feems compofed to do honour to the
Jews in the perſon of Daniel, but ill agrees
with one of his former obſervations, p. 153.
viz. it fhould feem, the book of Daniel was
not of that account with the Jews, as the
other books of the prophets were: for it ſeems
very ftrange that the book of Daniel fhould
feem to be compoſed to do honour to the
Jews, and that it ſhould feem at the ſame time
that
[51]
that the Jews fhould not make much account
of a book, which it feems was written for
their reputation and credit.
OBJECT. X.
THE author of the book of Daniel ap-
pears plainly, from the last chapter of
his book, to be a writer of things, after a
prophetical manner, and to have lived after
divers of the events, that he ſeems to pro-
phefy of. For having explained, in effect, the
prophecy of the Seventy weeks, he adds, But
go thou thy way till the end be; for thou
fhalt reft and ftand in thy lot at the end of
the days, i. e. thou thy felf ſhalt live,
and be an eye-witness, and fee an end of thefe
things, according to our Schematift's com-
ment. To which I anfwer, that the author
of the book of Daniel appears plainly, from
every part of his book, to be a writer of
things to come. He affirms himſelf to be
that Daniel, that was carried away captive
by Nebuchadnezzar in the third year of Je-
boiachim, that he lived in the reigns of Nebu-
chadnezzar,
*
G 2
[ 52 ]
.לקץ
chadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius, and Cyrus
and that what he wrote was by revelation.
And as to the quotation out of the laft
chapter, 'tis pity he had not confulted his
oracle Grotius, and he would have learnt
from him a better fenfe and interpretation of
ſome of the words. Go thou thy way ps.
This word may either fignify the remainder
of Daniel's days; Go`thou thy way in peace
for the remainder of thy life. Or it may re-
fpèct the diftant accomplishment of his pro-
phecies; or what I take to be the real fenfe
of the words, as well as the plaiñeft, that he
was come to an end of his own 'prophecies.
The angel faid to him, ver. 9. Go thy way,
´Daniel, for the words are clofed up and fealed
till the end of the time. Bleſſed is he that
waiteth and cometh to the one thousand three
But .ואתה לך לקץ .hundred thirty five days
לך נא
‘♫N
1.
J
come thou to an end. In this fenfe the verb
is uſed, Numb. xxiii. 13. come
with me, I pray. And again, v. 27. and in
feveral other places; or as 'tis expreffêd, v.4.
But thou, O Daniel, but up the words and
Seal the book. For thou shalt rest, shalt from
henceforth enjoy a ſtate of peace and honour,
and stand in thy lot, Præfecturaní quam nunc
t f
R
habes
[53]
}
I
habes retinebis, i. e. fhalt retain the dignity
of firft Preſident of the empire, thou art
now in poffeffion of; at the end of the
days, or as it fhould have been rendered, to
the very end of the days. Ad pleniffimam
ufque fenectutem. Hic fimpliciffimus eft
fenfus, faith Grotius, i. e. to the very end
of thy life. In this ſenſe the original word
is ufed, Pfal. xvi. s. Thou maintaineft
my lot, i. e. my ftate of honour and happi-
neſs, as it follows, ver. 6. The lines are fal-
len unto me in pleaſant places, yea, I have a
goodly heritage. So that our author's expli-
cation is by no means critical and juft. That
which I have given is agreeable to the con-
nection and proper ſenſe of the words, as well
as to Daniel's own account elſewhere. Thus
he exprefly declares, that the time appointed
for the accomplishment of the things revealed to
him was long, chap. x. 1. and ver. 14. The
things that were to befal his people, were to
happen in the latter days; for yet the viſion
is for many days, and in other places. The
-author - therefore of Daniel's book lived
long before the events prophefied of, and
the great punctuality of his prophecies, which
Jofephus peaks of, as it is not a thing uncom-
4
?
}
mon
[54]
mon to other prophecies, may be owing to
fomething elſe than the time of their compo-
fition, to avoid the falfe English of the Lite-
teral Schematift, and is imputed by Jofephus
to another caufe, viz. οτι το θείον αυτω
πνευμα συμπαρέσει,
πveuμa ouμπapec, his divine inſpiration,
Antiq. l. 10. c. $
II. 3. and the reaſon
why the Jewish nation believed him was, or
Aavindos wμidel Tw Jew, becauſe Daniel con-
verſed with God, Ibid. §. 7. As to his ob-
fervation about the one thoufand three hun-
dred and thirty five days, I fhall confider
it when I come to the prophecy of the feven-
ty weeks.
L
OBJECT. XI.
ASTLY, The book of Daniel, like the
Jewiſh hiſtorical books, ſets forth facts
very imperfectly, and often contrary to other
hiſtorical relations, p. 157. I anſwer, this is no
objection againſt the authority of Daniel's
book: The facts he ſpeaks of, he ſays as much
of as was neceſſary to his purpoſe, as a Jewish
writer, hiftorian, and prophet; and if there
be any difference between his hiſtorical rela-
tions and thoſe of others, his relation is to
be
[ 55 ]
be preferred, as being by much the moſt an-
tient writer, and living in the times he writes
about. As to his perpetual repreſenting hea-
thens talking and acting like Jews, which
he ſpeaks of, the charge is not true. The
Chaldean aftrologers ſpeak of the gods. Ne-
buchadnezzar commanded ſweet odours, and
an oblation to be offered to Daniel upon
his revealing and interpreting his dreams;
and becauſe the three children would not
worſhip the golden image, he, like an infolent
heathen prince, demands of them, who is
that God that ſhall deliver you out of my
hands: the like may be obſerved in many
other places of his book.
The only pretence for this trifling charge is,
that ſome of the princes under whom Daniel
lived, worshipped upon particular occafions
the only true God, the God of the Jews.
The true reafon of which was, the evident
proofs they faw of his ſuperiour power and
wiſdom, in which none of the gods of Ba-
bylon or Perfia were like him. But if the
book of Daniel it ſelf did not furniſh us
with a plain anſwer to this objection, I re-
member a paffage in the Difcourfe of the
grounds
[56]
grounds and reaſons, that would, p. 139,
where that acute author tells us, that the
Jews in their captivity learned the worſhip
of one God from the Chaldeans. This in-
deed is no very probable affertion, but iş
however enough to account for any paſſage
in Daniel that hath a Jewish air, upon his
own principles.
What he adds, that the whole book is writ-
ten in a particular style, a dark emblemati-
cal, fymbolical, parabolical, and figurative
ftyle, will appear very odd to any one who
looks to the page before; where he tells us,
that the author of the book of Daniel hath
moft clearly ſpoken of the miſerable times of
the Jews, and their prodigious misfortunes
under Antiochus Epiphanes, and of the good
times which were to follow on his death;
and again, p. 151. Divers matters of fact
are Spoken of in the book of Daniel in the
way of prophecy, with the clearness of hifto-
ry, from Daniel's time to the times of
Antiochus Epiphanes. Strange book this of
Daniel's, the whole of which is written in
a dark ſtyle, and part of which is written,
nevertheless, with the clearness of hiſtory.
All the world muſt allow the great acuteness
of
[ 57 ]
of our author, who can make the fame book
all dark and partly clear; and that can argue,
both from the darkness and clearness of it,
against its authority and antiquity.
He goes on, I add, that the way of repre-
fenting large fcenes of affairs, by fuch images
and fymbols, as are used therein, is entirely
unlike the books of the other prophets, and the
books of the Old Teftament, and is agreeable
to the turn of writing the Jews took up with,
when they had been new formed in the fchools
of the Greeks: to all which I anſwer, that
the way of reprefenting large fcenes of affairs
by fuch images and fymbols, is not entirely
unlike the books of the other prophets, and
for this I appeal to the prophets themſelves.
All the fymbolical reprefentations that are
in Daniel, are but three, reprefentations by
beaſts, trees, and images. The repreſentati-
ons by beafts, is as old as the times of Jo-
feph and Pharaoh, when feven fat kine re-
prefented ſeven plentiful years; and ſeven
lean kine, ſeven years of famine. The de-
noting the fame events by feven ears of
corn, rank and good, and feven others blafted
with the caft wind, is fomewhat like Ne-
buchadnezzar's
H
[ 58 ]
buchadnezzar's tree. However, the burning
Ezekiel's vine-trce to denote the deftruction
of Jerufalem, Ezek. xv. and Zechariah's vi-
fionary olive trees to reprefent the two anoin-
ted ones, will be allowed inftances fully pa-
rallel. See alſo, Zech. i. 8. And as to the
laſt ſymbol, the image in Nebuchadnezzar's
dream; if our author had read Jeremiah, or in-
deed almoſt any other of the prophets,he would
have ſeen many like reprefentations. Jere-
miah had a viſion of a potter's veffel of clay
marred in the hand of the potter, xviii. 4.
Ezekiel, of a boiling pot, xxiv. 3. Zecha-
riah, of a golden candleſtick, with a bowl on
the top of it, and ſeven lamps thereon, and
ſeven pipes to the ſeven lamps, Zech. iv. 2.
See alſo chap. v. and vi. and other places,
by which images were denoted feveral re-
markable events. So that Daniel's fymbolical
repreſentations are agreeable to thofe of the
other prophets, and may therefore be looked
on as an argument of the antiquity of his book.
I would farther obferve, that this way
of repreſenting ſcenes of affairs, by images
and fymbols, fcems to have been very anti-
ent amongst the eaſtern nations, as appears
from
[ 59 ]
from the books of the Old Teſtament, and
that long before either Jews or Chaldeans
had any commerce with the Greeks, and to
be entirely different from the ufage and cu-
ſtoms of the Greek ſchools; and our author's
making the Jews fall into this turn of wri-
ting, when they had been formed in the ſchools
of the Greeks, is as true, pertinent, and cri-
tical a remark, as that which he makes elfe-
where, viz. the Jews learning the worſhip
of one God, from their converfing with the
idolatrous Babylonians.
Thus have I examined all our author's
mighty arguments, to prove that Daniel's
book, now extant, is not the book of the
famous Daniel: I will allow them to be con-
clufive, if wrong calculations, groundleſs af-
ſertions, unfupported fuppofitions, plain con-
tradictions, miſtaken repreſentations, falſe
quotations, and bad English, are of any
weight, or deferve any regard from the think-
ing and impartial part of mankind. It ap
pears to me, that he underſtands nothing at
all of the argument; but that he hath collec-
ted, into his common place book, without
care or judgment, without underſtanding, or
fairly
H 2
[60]
fairly repreſenting his author, all that he
could pick up about Daniel's book; and
from hence he hath marfhalled it into
eleven whole confiderations on the author,
2
antiquity, and matter of the ſaid book. When
the antiquity of any book is in queſtion, 'tis
a mean proceeding in any writer, that fets
up
for a judge of the controverfy, to tread
only in the beaten fteps of Prideaux and
Grotius, and other modern writers, which a
fchool boy of ordinary capacity can read and
conftrue as well as himſelf. 'Tis meaner ftill,
to quote his authorities imperfectly, and
wreft the fenſe of his author to a meaning
they never intended. 'Tis yet worſe, to quote
them as authorities, for what they not only
deny, but affirm the direct contrary of.
of. Were
Kidder and Prideaux now alive, they would
abhor to ſee themſelves brought in as ſe-
conds to fupport the cauſe of infidelity in
a fingle branch of it; and deteſt an author
that can thus abuſe their names and wri-
tings, in favour of a ſcheme, that hath
neither truth nor honefty to ſupport it,
But
[61]
But before I difmifs this fubject, I fhall
produce fome arguments to prove the proper
antiquity of Daniel's book.
T¹
ARGUMENT I
Yo
HE age and circumftances of Daniel a-
gree with the fuppofed time of writing
this book. Daniel, when he was chofen by
the mafter of the eunuchs, was eminent for his
skill in wiſdom, knowledge, and underſtand-
ing. In the fecond year of Nebuchadnez-
zar, he told him his dream, with the inter-
pretation of it, and encreaſed in wiſdom,
reputation, and honour, under the fucceffive
reigns of the kings of Babylon and Perfia.
And upon account of his extraordinary piety
and wiſdom he is taken notice of, and com-
mended by Ezekiel, who was his fellow
prophet and contemporary.
There is no
other Daniel that the Jews make mention
of, and eſteem as an inſpired prophet, but the
author of the book of Daniel, who was
famous for wifdom; and the account given
of him by Ezekiel is almoft a demonftra-
tive
[ 62 ]
tive proof that he is the fame with the author
of the book of Daniel; for in one place of
Ezekiel, xiv. 14. he is recorded as a remark-
able inftance of righteouſneſs and piety; and
in the other place, xxviii. 3. as being famous
for his wisdom, and as one from whom no
fecret could be hid; which is the very cha-
racter of Daniel, in the book that bears his
name; who kept himſelf from the pollution
of heathen meats, and would not worſhip
the golden image; and of whom 'tis particu-
larly declared, that he had understanding in
all vifions and dreams, Dan. i. 17.
TH
ARGUMENT II,
HE purity of the language in which the
book is written, both of the Chaldee
and Hebrew, is an undeniable argument of
its great antiquity. Learned men have ob-
ſerved, that the books of Chronicles, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Efther, and Malachi, fall very
fhort of the correctness, which is in other
parts of the Hebrew fcriptures. But the fame
objection hath never been made, that I know
of₂
[63]
of, againſt Daniel's book, by any one that
underſtands either Hebrew or Chaldee. The
book is written in a terfe and biblical man-
ner, and with fuch elegance and purity, as
that it is juftly accounted a ftandard to try
other later compofitions by. I am in no
pain, that our author, above all men in the
world, can prove the contrary. Now, fince
every language, from the very nature of it,
is in a conftant flux, and in every age de-
viating from what it was in the former;
the purity of Daniel's language makes it evi-
dent, that it must be written before the pu-
rity of thofe languages were loft, i. e.
about the time when Ezekiel's Daniel
lived and flouriſhed.
ARGUMENT IÌI.
Would obferve that there is no one inter-
IWo
nal mark throughout the whole book of
Daniel, to prove it a compofition later than
the time of the famous Daniel. 'Tis fçarce
poffible that any writer can fo exactly imitate
antiquity, as not to be guilty of ſome mi-
ſtake,
[64]
ſtake, that will be enough to convince the
world of the impofture, and betray the real
time and date of his writings. 'Tis by fome
fuch internal marks, that learned men have
difcovered the fpuriouſneſs of ſome compo-
fitions, falfely afcribed to venerable and an-
tient authors. And to do the author of the
Literal Scheme juftice, he hath attempted this
with respect to Daniel's book, but hath un.
luckily failed in every inftance. For inſtead
of ſaying that the author of the book of
Daniel calls the kings, whom he mentions,
by different names from what other writers
do, he ought to have affigned the true names
of thoſe kings, from unquestionable authori-
tics; and then proved that the names Daniel
mentions, were borrowed from other later
writers inſtead of telling us from Grotius,
to whom he is beholden for this learned
diſcovery, that there are fome Greek words
in the Chaldee of Daniel, he ought to prove,
that the Greeks had no commerce with the
Chaldeans and Perfians for feveral hundred
years after, even till the time to which he
affigns the compofition of Daniel's book.
This will be proof, whereas what he urges
is
[65]
is quibble, and contrary to the truth of hi-
ſtory, and can anſwer no other purpoſe, but to
ſhew his ignorance of antiquity, and his want
of judgment, or integrity. The whole of
Daniel's book carries in it all the marks of
venerable antiquity. His characters of the
princes he lived under agree well with the
account given us by other hiftorians. Hea-
thens are repreſented as talking and acting
like heathens. He himſelf preſerves the cha-
racter of a Jew. His vifions are agreeable
to thofe of other prophets. His periods of
time tally with the truth of hiſtory. In a
word, there is not in the whole book one
argument to prove it a compofition of later
Jews, to do honour to the Jewish nation, as
this writer meanly, and without foundation,
ſuppoſes.
?
ARGUMENT IV.
HE very reaſon affigned by the Jews,
was not
why the book of Daniel was not of
that account with them, as the other books
of the Jews were, is an argument at leaſt of
I
the
[66]
the antiquity of this book. This author tells
us from Maimonides, p. 154. That the Jews
do unanimously place the book of Daniel a
mongst the Hagiographi, and not amongst the
prophetical books. He cites the fame paffage
again, p. 443. but for a purpoſe as is enough to
aftoniſh every candid and honeft reader, viz.
to prove that the Jews fay, they have ever
excluded it from being one of their facred ca-
nonical books. Maimonides fays, they have
unanimouſly placed Daniel amongſt the Ha-
giographi, i. e. their facred books, tho' not
amongſt the prophetical. Our author fays,
the Jews have ever excluded Daniel from be-
ing one of their facred canonical books, and
cites this very place of Maimonides to prove
it. I need make no reflections, every reader
will make the just ones for himself; and
therefore I will only obſerve, that the reaſon
of this, as Reland fays, was becauſe his reve-
lations from God were by dream, which
they reckon the most imperfect method of
revelation. Now the true way of depreciat-
ing the book of Daniel, would have been to
fhew the latenefs of its compofition, and to
have thrown it out of the canon. But in-
ftead of this, they unanimously place it a-
mongst
[67]
mongst the Hagiographi, and therefore una-
nimouſly account it as part of their canon.
For the book's called Hagiographi, amongſt
which are the Pfalms, Proverbs, Job, and
others, were all efteemed as written by infpi-
red men, and equally part of the Jewish
canon as the prophetical books themſelves.
Jofephus exprefly comprehends them within
the canon, when he tells us they had but
twenty two books that they efteemed as di-
vine, five of Mofes, thirteen of the other
prophets, αι λοιπα τέσσαρες ύμνος εις τον θεον,
και τοις ανθροπείς υποθηκας το βιο περιέχεσιν.
Cont. App. l. 1. §. 8. Tho' I doubt not but that
Fofephus reckoned Daniel amongſt the pro-
phets, and that the later Jews, out of a pre-
judice to the book, numbered it only amongſt
the Hagiographi. However, this unanimous
confent of the Jews, for the placing Daniel's
book in the canon, is an unanswerable argu-
ment of its authority and antiquity; fince
'tis not to be fuppofed that they would have
acknowledged a feigned author, and a late
compofition, as part of their facred canon;
eſpecially confidering that they have preju-
dices against the book it ſelf, on account of
Daniel's declaring, that the Meffiah ſhould be
I 2
cut
[68]
cut off. They would have taken the fhorteft
way to have anſwered the chriftians argu-
ment from that paffage, viz. by denying the
authority of the book, if they had not been
abundantly convinced of the contrary.
TH
ARGUMENT V.
HE mention of Daniel by the au-
thor of the first book of Maccabees,
gives great fupport to the antiquity of Da-
niel's book. For Mattathias being about to
die, encourages his fons to fight zealouſly
for their religion and liberties, and com-
mands them, Call to remembrance what acts
our fathers did in their time, I Mac. ii. 51.
i. e. that they fhould excite themfelves to
courage, by reviewing the glorious deeds of
their forefathers, recorded in their facred
writings; for there is not one inſtance that
he mentions, befides this of Daniel, in di-
fpute, that is not taken from their ſcriptures:
and indeed nothing could be fo proper to ex-
cite them to courage, for the preſervation and
honour of the law, as to fet before them
thoſe
[ 69 ]
thofe examples of valour and piety, which
their own law, and facred writings preſented
them with. And amongſt ſuch a number,
'tis fcarce probable he would have mentioned
Daniel and his three companions, had they
not ſtood on record in fome authentick book,
as inftances of the peculiar favour and protecti-
on of God in reward of their pious adhe-
rance to the law. Befides, as the hiftory of
theſe four worthies is no where preſerved but
in the book of Daniel, fo the account given
of them by Mattathias being entirely a-
greeable to what the author of the book of
Daniel relates, is a ftrong prefumption that
he referred his children to this book, as he
muſt to the other facred books, for the
other inſtances he mentions. Now Matta-
thias lived in the times of Antiochus, and
therefore his referring his children to Da-
niel's book and hiftory, is a proof both of
the authority and antiquity of it.
And farther, his referring them to Daniel's
book will appear the more juft, if we confider,
that this was the time when the prophecies
of Daniel were about fome of them to be
accompliſhed. For tho' it was prophefied of
Antiochus
[ 70 ]
*
1
Antiochus, that he ſhould do the Jews much
miſchief; yet it was declared at the fame
time, that the people that knew their God
Should be strong and do exploits, Dan. xi. 32.
And thereupon Mattathias affures them,
that none that put their trust in God shall
be overcome, and as tho' he had the prophe-
cy of Daniel before him, which declared of
Antiochus, that he ſhould be broken without
hand, he adds, Fear not the words of a fin-
ful man, for his glory fhall be dung and worms.
To day he ſhall be lifted up, and to morrow
he ſhall not be found, because he is returned
into his duft, and his thought is come to no-
thing. Wherefore be valiant, my fons, and
Shew your felves men in the behalf of the
law, for by it you ſhall obtain glory, v. 62,
63, 64. · And what adds yet farther ftrength
to this argument, for the antiquity of Da
niel's book, that it was written before, Antio-
chus's time, is, that the abomination of defo-
lation is an expreffion peculiar to Daniel,
who foretold that it fhould be fet up by. An-
tiochus upon the altar of the daily facrifice.
And agreeable hereto, the author of this book
of Maccabees takes particular notice, that
Antiochus's
X
[71]
Antiochus's officers did fet up the abominati-
on of defolation upon the altar, chap. i. 54.
an expreffion fo very peculiar, that it could
be taken from no other book but that of
Daniel, and is an unanswerable proof of its
having the famous Daniel for its author.
As
ARGUMENT VI.
S to Jofephus's catalogue; I obferve
that Prideaux's method of accounting
for his two and twenty books, feems the
moſt probable and nearest to truth. Jofe
phus himſelf appears to have had the higheſt
notion of Daniel, and calls him as twv μe-
γις των προφητών, and expreflly declares, τα β:-
Ελια, όσα δε συγΓραψαμεν@ καταλελοιπεν, α-
να γινώσκεται παρ' ημιν επι και νυν. De Antig.
Jud. lib. 10. c. 11. §.7. That the books
which Daniel wrote were read amongſt
them, even to that day. From whence I
infer, it had been the ancient cuſtom to
read Daniel's book, and that it was in the
Jewish canon, and therefore made one of
the twenty two mentioned by Jofephus.
This appears the more probable, from what
he
[72]
he ſays in his firſt book againſt Appion, §.8.
Απο δε της Μωυσέως τελευτης μεχρι της Άρτα
ξέρξει
αρχής, οι μετα Μωυσην προφηται τα
$
και αυτός πραχθεντα συνεδραψαν Απο δε
Αρταξέρξε μέχρι καθ' ημας χρόνε νεΓραπίαι
μεν έκαςα: πίςεως δε εκ ομοίας ηξίωται τους προ
αυτών, δια το μη γενεας την των προφητων
angien dizdoxnu? That they had an account
of all the Jewiſh affairs, fince the reign of
Artaxerxes to his own time, but not of e-
qual credit and authority with the former,
becauſe they had no regular fucceffion of
prophets. The prophets that fucceeded Mo-
fes wrote a regular account of the Jewiſh
affairs to the reign of Artaxerxes: but
where is great part of this account, viz.
of all the Babylonian and Perfian kings, to
be found, but in Daniel? Jofephus took
his account of theſe times from him, and
confequently judged his account authentick,
and muſt therefore place his book, as the
book of a prophet that wrote before Arta-
xerxes, in his canon of fcripture.
This is
Jofephus
little lefs than demonſtration.
reckons Daniel's book Ev Tois apxacois Bi-
εν τοις αρχαίοις
C21015. Antiq. lib. 10. c. 10. §. 6. The Jews
read this book in their fynagogues, and
therefore
[73]
therefore paid a greater regard to it than
they did to any book written after Artaxer-
xes's time, after which there was no regular
fucceffion of prophets. Befides, Jofephus
expreffly fays, that Daniel foretold the mi-
Leries of the Jews under Antiochus Epipha-
nes, and wrote the account of it many years
before his time. De Antiq. lib. 10. c. 11.
§. ult. And, laftly, to put this thing be-
yond all difpute, Jofephus himſelf abfolute-
ly determines the matter, faying, & de s
βολεας μαθείν, απολαζατο το βιβλιον αναίνωναι
το Δανιηλό ευρήσει δε τότο εν τοις ιεροις γραμ
paow. Antiq. Fud. lib. 10. c. 10. §. 4. If any
one would know thefe matters, let him read
the book of Daniel, which he will find a-
mongſt the facred writings.
લ
But fuppofing that Jofephus did include
the book of Daniel amongst his twenty two
facred books; yet, fays our author, will not
Daniel be proved authentick by the authority
of Jofephus, who was wholly governed in
this matter by the Jewish tradition of his
time. I anſwer, that Jofephus's putting this
book into his canon, is a ftrong proof of its
being authentick. For it proves that it was
judged
K
t
[74]
judged in Jofephus's time to be written be-
fore the time of Artaxerxes, and that of
conſequence it was the book of an inſpired
prophet; for after Artaxerxes, they had no
prophets, and therefore no writings after him
could be admitted as prophetical, and part
of their facred canon. Jofephus's judgment,
and the Jewish tradition of his time, is of
great weight in the argument. For it proves,
that as they placed it in the canon, they re-
ceived it as part of the canon, and read it as
a facred book. And tho' ſome of the twenty
two books were not received into the canon
in Ezra's time, but in the time of Simon
the just, this will not prove that they were
not written before Simon's time, no nor after
the times of Artaxerxes; but that they
were very ancient books, and accounted by
the perſon who added them to the canon as
authentick. And this is all that Dr. Pri-
deaux means, who fays, not that theſe books
were written fo late as the times of Simon
the just, but that it was not till then that
they were added, and thereby the canon of
holy Scripture was fully compleated. And
therefore Jofephus his account may yet be
true
[75]
true in the main, when he affirms, that
after so many ages, or from the times of
Artaxerxes, none have ever fo much as at-
tempted, to add to, or take away from, or to
make any alteration in them. i. e. attempted
to add any books to the canon, written af-
ter Artaxerxes his time, or to put out of it
any written before. And this I take to be
the true meaning of Jofephus in this paſſage.
As to the genealogy of the Sons of Zerub-
babel in Chronicles, carried down to the
times of Alexander the great, 'tis, I think,
very probable that this was added at the time
when that book was annexed to the canon,
in order the better to preferve the account
of the fucceffion in his family. But if all
that this author tells us out of Prideaux was
true, 'tis nothing to the purpoſe againſt the
authentickneſs of Daniel's book, becauſe it
was never pretended that this was one of the
number added by Simon, but efteemed as
part of the facred canon long before.
K 2
ARGU.
[16]
JOSE
ARGUMENT VII.
SEPHUS's account, that the pro-
phecy of the book of Daniel relating to
Alexander, was fhewn him by Jaddus the
high priest, carries in it feveral marks of pro-
bability, and is therefore a concurrent proof
that the book was written before his time.
Our author ſays, that the whole ftory, as re-
lated in Jofephus, is an entire fiction, unfup-
ported, and 'inconfiftent with history and chro-
nclagy, and for the proof, appeals to Dr. Wag-
fraffe and Van Dale. I fhall firſt give an
account of what Jofephus writes, and then
examine what the Schematist alledges from
Van Dale to the contrary. Jofephus's ac-
count, in fhort, is this. That whilft Alex-
ander was befieging Tyre, he fent to the in-
habitants of the neighbouring country, par-
ticularly Judæa, to demand from them fup-
plies for his army, and the payment of the
tribute annually given to Darius. That the
Jews refuſed it out of regard to their oath
to Darius. That therefore Alexander upon
the reduction of Tyre and Gaza, marched
}
11
againft
[ 77 ]
against Jerufalem with an intention to pu-
niſh the Jews for diſobeying his orders, but
that he was prevented from his intended re-
venge by a dream, and by Jaddus's meeting
him in his pontifical habit, folemnly attended
by the prieſts and people. That he entered
Jerufalem in peace, had the prophecy of
Daniel fhewn him, hereupon went to the
Perfian war with affurance of fuccefs, and
granted the Jews peculiar privileges.
It must be owned that Jofephus is in a mi-
ſtake in one part of his account, viz. that
Alexander, after the reduction of Tyre, went
to Gaza, and from thence back again to Je-
rufalem. For Curtius, Arrian, Diodorus
Siculus, and Plutarch in his life of Alexan-
der, all affirm, that he went directly from
Gaza into Egypt; and indeed moſt pro-
bably he did, Gaza being much nearer to
Egypt than Jerufalem. The moſt likely
account is, that he went from Tyre directly
to Jerufalem, it being his way to Gaza; and
one cannot well imagine, that in his progreſs
to Gaza, he would omit taking in ſo confi-
derable a fortrefs as Jerufalem; for before
this, the walls and gates of Jerufalem had
been
[ 78 ]
been built and fet up by the favour of the
Perfian kings.
Allowing this miftake, the whole account
of Jofephus is probable, and indeed could not
be well otherwife than as he relates it. Alex-
ander ſpent ſeven months in the fiege of Tyre,
and must therefore have occafion for fupplies
from the neighbouring countries; and as
Tyre it felf was moftly fupplied by Galilee,
Samaria, and Judæa, whence could Alexan-
der demand proper fupplies, but from them.
Curtius, l. 4. c. 4. Plutarch in Alexander.
'Tis certain, that at this time, the Jews were
under Subjection to the king of Perfia, and
might therefore juftly plead their oath to Da-
rius, to excuſe them from furniſhing his ene-
my with proviſion; and 'tis fcarce probable
that Alexander would bare fuch a refufal
without purpoſes of an exemplary revenge.
This he ſeems to have intended after the
conqueft of Tyre. For as Jerufalem lay in
his way to Gaza, 'tis not likely he would
pass by fo important a place as Jerufalem,
which was the capital of the whole country,
and from which he had received fo remark-
able an affront, by their refuſing to furniſh his
army with proviſion.
The
[79]
The Jews had reaſon to fear the refent-
ment of Alexander, from the vengeance he
had executed on the Tyrians; and as the moſt
likely way to appeaſe his wrath, was a free
furrender of themſelves and city into his
hands, accordingly, Jaddus, in a pompous
proceffion, met him at fome diſtance from
Jerufalem, into which he went accompanied
by his followers, and had there the prophecy
of Daniel fhewn him, which encouraged him
in his future expedition againſt the Perfians.
That he was at Jerufalem is the more proba-
ble, becauſe of the great privileges he allowed
the Jews at his new city Alexandria, which
he peopled out the neighbouring cities, Curt.
1. c. 8. privileges cqual to what the Mace-
donians themfelves were allowed, as Joſe-
phus againſt Appion, 1. 2. affures us, appeal-
ing to Alexander's letters; and from his giv-
ing them the country of the Samaritans, up-
on their having murthered Andromachus, his
lieutenant in Syria, as a mark of the pecu-
liar reſpect he had for them, for which the
fame Jofephus appeals to Hecat aus.
Diodorus Siculus alſo intimates that Alex-
ander was in other places of that country
befides
[80]
befides Gaza. For he fays, Anež«vde & o
βασιλευς του περι την Γαζαν διοίκησας. He
fettled the affairs of the country all about
Gaza. Curtius, l. 4. c. s. that he had made
Andromachus governour of Cœlo Syria, in
which was Samaria and Jerufalem, which
therefore muſt have furrendred to him; and
and that after this rex-ad urbem Gazam
cum omnibus copiis venit. And Justin tells
us, l. 11. c. 10. In Syriam proficifcitur, ubi
obvios cum infulis multos orientis reges ha-
buit. Upon which If. Voffius thus juftly
comments, Puto refpicere Juftinum ad memo-
rabilem illam hiftoriam, quam Jofephus.de
Faddo, fummo Judeorum facerdote, narrat.
And the reaſon why theſe writers takes no
particular notice of his going to Jerufalem,
probably was, becauſe the city yielded to him
without refiſtance, and he only paffed thro' it
in his way to Gaza; and therefore Van Dale's
remark, Perpende nunc, mi lector, an talia
ac tanta que Jofephus perhibet, ita intra fep-
tem dierum Spatium, cum Judæis ac Samari-
tis peragere potuerit, ac fimul intra iftud fpa-
tium in Ægyptum pervenire, Van Dale Dif.
fuper Arift. p. 77. will only prove Jofephus
miſtaken
[ 81 ]
miſtaken, in ſaying, Alexander went from
Gaza to Jerufalem, and thence into Ægypt ;
but will not invalidate the account of his go-
ing from Tyre to Jerufalem, and granting
the Jews extraordinary privileges, and then
going to Gaza, and from thence to Ægypt.
One ſingle miſtake in Jofephus will not
difprove the whole account. For there muſt be
a miſtake in the other authors who write about
this affair. Juſtin takes no notice of Alex-
der's being at all at Gaza, but fays, Inde,
i. e. from Tyre, Rhodum Alexander Ægyp-
tum Ciliciam que fine certamine recipit. Now
it would be but a poor inference, that be-
cauſe Justin omits the account of Alexan-
der's being at Gaza, he never was there;
or that becauſe Justin fays, that after the
fiege of Gaza, Alexander took in Cilicia,
therefore the whole account is falfe, becauſe
he had feized Cilicia long before.
If Alexander was at Jerufalem, the whole
account of Jofephus is probable. 'Tis evi-
dent that Jofephus himſelf reckon❜d the book
of Daniel extant in Alexander's time; and
if it was, Faddus could not better confult
the fafety of his city, nor the honour of his
nation,
L
[82]
nation, than by fhewing it to Alexander,
whom by his great fucceffes he had reaſon to
believe was the perfon intended by Daniel's
prophecy. And if Alexander faw fuch a
prophecy of himſelf in the Jewiſh writings,
the peculiar privileges he granted the Jews
may be easily accounted for.
Upon the whole, I leave the world to judge,
whether our author, who hath fhewn no other
fearning than what he hath fcraped together
out of Van Dale and Wagstaff, could, with-
out great modèfty, give this as his only an-
fwer to Jofephus's account, that the whole
is an entire fiction, unsupported, and inconfi-
ftent with chronology, and romantick in its
circumstances. But 'tis much the eafter
way to take things upon truft, and to ima-
gine them proved ready to his hands, than
to be at the pains to prove them him-
felf.
ARGU.
[83]
THE
ARGUMENT VIII.
και
HE laft argument I fhall produce for
the antiquity and authority of Da-
niel's book, fhall be the teftimony of 70-
Sephus, whofe opinion may be looked on
as the ſtanding ſenſe of the Jewish nation at,
and fometime before, his time. This tefti-
mony I fhall produce, and make fome pro-
per remarks on it. Of Daniel himfelf, he fays,
κανως ήδη σοφιας εμπείρως έχων, περι κρισεις
ονειρων εισεδακει.
το θείον αυτω φανερον
εγενετο. He was endowed with abundant
wiſdom, ftudied the interpretation of dreams,
and had God evidently with him, Ant. l. 10.
c. 10. §. 2. And again, cap. 10. §. 7.
απαντα γας αυτο
ευτυχηθη προφητών.
δε συγγραψαμλυθ καταλελοιπεν, αναγινώσκεται
παρ' ημιν ετι και νυν. και πεπιτευκαμίμ εξ
αυτων οτι ΔανιηλΘ. ωμιλει τω Θεω, ε γας του
μέλλοντα μόνον προφητεύων διετελεί, καθαπερ
και οι άλλοι προφηται αλλα και ωριζεν, εις
L 2
ως
ΤΙ των μεγίστων
Τα γαρ βιβλια, οστε
ΟΡ
[ 84 ]
εν ταυτα αποβησεται.
απο δε τέλος αυτών
αλήθειας πιςιν και δόξαν ομε θειότητα παρα
τοις όχλοις αποφερεπς. κατέλιπε δε γράψας οθεν
ημιν το της προφητειας ακριβές αυτό και απα
ραλλακίον εποίησε δηλον. All things happened
profperouſly to him, as to one of the great-
eft prophets. The books he wrote, and
which now remain, are read by us to this
day, and from them we believe that Daniel
converfed with God. For he not only fore-
· 4.
3
told future things as did the other prophets,
but fixed the time when they were to hap-
pen; and from the accompliſhment of his
predictions, the people not only eſteemed
him a truc, but an infpired perfon. There he
committed to writing, where we may fee
that his prophecies are certain and immu-
table. What thefe prophecies were, 7ofe-
phus tells us, Και δη ταύτα ημων συνεβη τω
έθνει παθειν υπ' Αντίοχο του Επιφανες, καθώς
είδεν ο Δανιηλα, και πολλοίς έτεσιν εμπροσθεν
ανέγραψε τα γενησομ για τον αι τον δε τρόπον
Δανιηλα και περι της των Ρωμαίων ηγεμονίας
ανέγραψε, και οτι υπ' αυτών ερημωθήσεται.
ταυτα παντα εκεινα, Θες δείξαντα αυτώ,
συγγράψας κατέλειψεν, ώςε τις αναγινωσκοντας,
και
[85]
και τα συμβαίνοντα σκοπέντας θαυμάζειν επι τη
παρα το Θεο
Oes Tipen
τον Δαναηλον. Vid.
Ant. 1. 12. c. 7. §. 6. Thefe misfortunes
happened to our nation under Antiochus
Epiphanes, even as Daniel forefaw, and
wrote many years before, fhould happen.
He likewife wrote of the Roman empire, and
of the great deſtruction that was to be made
by them. To which he ſeems afterwards to
refer, when ſpeaking of the burning of the
temple, he fays, παρην δ' η ειμαρμική χρονών
πsed. De Bel. Jud. 1. 6. c. 4. §. 5.
This is the account, which, put together
with the paffages before cited, affords the
following remarks. (1.) That Jofephus, and
the Jews, efteemed Daniel as one of the
greateſt prophets. (2.) That Daniel com-
mitted his prophecies to writing. (3.) That
Daniel wrote his prophecies before the times
of Antiochus Epiphanes. (4.) That the fa-
mous Daniel, and the author of the book of
Daniel, were the fame perfon. (5.) That this
book was one of the Jewish canon. (6.) That
it was read in the Jewifh fynagogues. (7.) And
that the event fhewed that his prophecies
were certain and immutable. This was the
belief
[86]
belief of the Jewish nation in Jofephus's
time, and had Daniel's book been a forged
book, and a lately forged book, it would
have been impoffible to have received it in-
to the canon; and had it not been in the
canon, and received by the Jews as one of
their facred books, 'tis impoffible Jofephus
could have made fuch a publick appeal to
the Jews for the truth of it.
But the Schematist hath his objections a-
gainſt this teftimony of Jofephus, which I beg
my reader's patience briefly to confider. He al-
lows, p. 453. that Jofephus gives us high en-
comiums of the infpirations, and prophecies of
Daniel, as extant in the book under his name.
But herein he conceives, that he can be
thought to give us at best only the tradition
of his time, and his own opinion of the au-
thenticity of the book of Daniel, from whence
little can be inferred to the advantage of the
book of Daniel. I anfwer, much may be
inferred to the advantage of the book of
Daniel, from the traditions or opinions of
his time. For if it was the belief of the
Jews then, that the book of Daniel was
an antient book, and written by an infpired
prophet, it certainly proves, that the book of
Daniel
[87]
*
*
Daniel was not a late compófition in their
times, but that it was tranſmitted to them by
their fathers, as an antient and authentick
book. Jofephus expreffly affirms, that Da-
niel prophefied of Antiochus Epiphanes, and
of the empire of the Romans, and of the
deftruction of Jerufalem by them; that his
book was in the facted canon, and that it
was read in the fynagogues, even to his time.
This was his belief, and the then prevailing
tradition of the Jews. But if this book had
been a forgery and impoſture, how came it
to be received into the canon of ſcripture ?
when was it firft introduced? how came the
impoſture of ſo general belief? what intereſt
could the Jews ferve by the admiſſion of Da-
niel's book, if it was a late compofition, into
their canon? Let any of our modern Deifts try
if they can add any new book to the chriſti-
an canon. It is impoffible but that a thing
of fuch importance must be known, and uni-
verfally known. 'Tis not difficult to deter-
mine when the laft books of the New Tefta-
ment were added to the canon. They were
difputed by fome, and allowed by others,
and chriſtians are not ftrangers to the objecti-
ons
[88]
ons of the one, or the arguments of the
other. Why doth not the Schematift pro-
duce fome fuch antient teftimonies to con-
front the teſtimony of Jofephus, and the
traditions of his time? The Mazorets were a
fet of antient criticks, who knew all the
books of the Old Teſtament, and numbered
the verſes of each book; and the addition of
fuch a book as Daniel to the canon, could
not have been made without their know-
ledge; and tho' a fingle word may ſteal into
the text now and then, yet that a whole
book, and the book of an author, not of
that account with the Jews as the other pro-
phets were, fhould flip into the canon with-
out obſervation, or oppofition, is to me al-
together incredible; and the more fo, becaufe
of the prodigious veneration the Jews had
ever after their captivity for their facred writ-
ings, which they fcarce ever touched with-
out a fuperftitious reverence, and which they
would, much leſs, have fuffered to be corrup-
ted by the addition of a forged and fpurious
writing.
Indeed the fuppofition it felf is an idle
and groundleſs one. For after the captivity,
the
[ 89 1
the copies of the facred books were nume-
rous, and written with the greateſt exactnefs
and care; read to the people in the Chaldee
language, and after read by fections on the
ſabbath in the fynagogues. And tho' the
law only was read till the times of Antio-
chus Epiphanes, yet the reading of the pro-
phets was afterwards introduced, when it
became much more difficult to add a whole
book of a ſuſpected author to the canon,
and Daniel's book could not therefore be
written after the times of Antiochus Epipha-
nes; and the compleating of the canon by
the addition of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah,
Efther, and Malachi, in the time of Simon
the juſt, if he really added them, evidently
prove them to be antient and genuine.
But to difcredit Jofephus's account, the
Schematist adds, that he hath put many fa-
bulous ſtories into his antiquities. I know
not what he can
from hence, but this,
infer to his
infer to his purpoſe
that therefore there
is nothing in Joſephus true.
Let him prove
Let him
the account of Daniel to be a fabulous ftory
by the fame evident marks, that he can prove
ſome other accounts of Jofephus to be fa-
M
bulous
[90]
bulous ftories, and impartial men will regard
him. That Jofephus his account of the
opinion of the Jews of his time is genuine,
appears, in that the Jews have been of the
fame fentiment ever fince, who unanimo con-
fenfu librum Danielis inter libros hagiogra
phos retulerunt.
But farther, Jofephus abridged the forged
and falſe hiſtory of Arifteas. Therefore,
one would think the plain inference fhould
be, he abridged fome antient book, and
called it the book of Daniel; or therefore
Jofephus and the Jews had no opinion of
Daniel as a prophet, and did not believe
the antiquity of the book of Daniel. The
book of Arifteas hath fome internal marks
of forgery. And he ought to fhew this of
Daniel's book, or his comparing it with
Arifteas's, will be looked on only as a
mark of his ignorance or malice.
But that which is to be the ftrongest objection
against Jofephus his account, is, I ſuppoſe,
reſerved till laſt. He often himself difcredits his
own relations, by the apologies he makes for
himself, as reciting things incredible; and in
particular he difcredits the book of Daniel.
For which he refers us to fome paffages in
his
[ 91 ]
his Antiquities. As this hath fome ſhew of
argument, I hope my reader will not think
me tedious, if I briefly examine them.
On occafion of Nebuchadnezzar's dream,
and Daniel's interpretation of it, Jofephus
fays, εγκαλέση δε μοι μηδεις αυτως ειςςα τούτων
απαγΓελλοντι δια της γραφης ως εν ταις αρχαίοις
ευριπιω βιβλίοις. και γαρ ευθύς εν αρχή της ιστορίας
προς τις επιζητησαντας τι των πραγματων η
με μψομένες ησφαλισαμων, μόνον το μεταφρασαν
της Εβραιων βιβλες ειπων εις των Ελληνιδα γλωτ-
ται, και ταυτα δηλώσειν, μητε προςιθεις τι τις
πραγμασιν αυτα ιδιόν, μην αφαιρειν υπεχέμμα
Jofeph. Antiq. l. 10. c. 40. §. 6. in fin.
Let no one blame me, for having re-
lated all theſe matters, as I find them in
• the ancient fcriptures. For in the begin-
ning of my hiftory, I guarded againſt the
objections of thofe that would either be
canvaffing or blaming any of the facts I
• fpeak of; and declared, that I would only
tranflate the Hebrew books into Greek,
without adding to them any thing of my
έ
.
own, or taking from them any thing they
'contain'. Which words of Jofephus are ſo
far from difcrediting the book of Daniel,
that they are on the contrary a noble te-
ftimony
M 2
[92]
ftimony in favour of the authentickneſs and
antiquity of it. For (1.) he expreffly herein
declares, that it was εν ταις αρχαιοις βιβλίοις,
not as the Schematift renders it, in antient
history, but in the antient books of ſcrip-
ture, as he affirms juft before, supnσe ev Tols
Legois reaμμaor. (2.) He fays, that in the be-
ginning of his hiftory, he guarded againſt
all objections that might be made by any
captious perfons, againſt the accounts of the
facred books; in which words he manifeftly
refers to the character he had given of them
in his introduction to his antiquities, when
he declares, That from the facred hiftory
we may learn that piety and virtue are re-
warded by God with profperity, and that
when men forfake the law of God, they
fall into the moft dreadful calamities. And
therefore he exhorts all that fhould read
his work, to confider the nature of God,
and to examine whether the works afcribed
to God in the Jewish writings, by their
law-giver, were not fuitable to his nature,
and free from all that mixture of yain
fables, which the writings of others are
ftuffed with. And by this rule he defires,
that all who would read his hiftory, would
$ carfully
.
.
.
<
[93]
carefully examine it'. It was by this that
Jofephus guarded himſelf againſt the objecti
ons that any might make to his hiſtory, and
therefore, he ſays, he confined himſelf entirely
to the ſcripture account, as believing the whole
of it agreeable to the nature and perfections of
God. And therefore having related of Da-
niel, what he found recorded in the antient
fcriptures concerning him, he refers his rea-
der to his introduction, as containing a ge-
neral anſwer to all objections that might be
made againſt it; it not being his province, as
an hiſtorian, to enter into a particular vin-
dication of the facts he related, but to give a
faithful tranſlation of the Hebrew books, and
to deliver ev'ry thing as he found it there.
C
The turn given to this paffage by the
Schematist, is injurious to Jofephus, as it is
almoſt every part of it injudiciouſly tranfla-
ted. For according to him, Jofephus fays,
As for the truth of this account I will not
be anfwerable. You have it as it is, and
you muſt make the beſt of it. But no-
thing can be more contrary to Jofephus his
mind, who appears to have had the higheſt
veneration for Daniel, as a prophet, and a
full perfuafion of the authenticity and anti-
quity
[94]
quity of his book. Tho' had this been his
real fenfe in this paffage, the Schematist
could not poffibly gain any thing by it. For
whatever opinion he might have of Daniel's
prophecies, he expreffly affirms, that he found
there things εν τοις αρχαιοις βιβλιας, or in the
antient ſcriptures.
The other paffage he cites is from the
11th book of his Antiquities, at the very
conclufion of it. Εγω μου εν περι τότων, ως
ευρον και ανεγνών, έτως έγραψα, οι δε τις αλλως
δοξάζειν βελησεται περι αυτων, αναγκλητον
εχέτω τίω ετερογνωμοσύνω. I have wrote
<
of theſe things juft as I found and read
them. But if any perſon will think
otherwife about them, I am not the
* perſon who will blame him for his diffe-
rent opinion. Just before, Jofephus very
freely gives his opinion concerning the pro-
phecies of Daniel, and declares, that he
.
C
wrote them many years before the things
he prophefied of, came to pafs; and that
whoever would read them, and confider
how punctually the events anfwered to
them, muſt admire Daniel, who was a
'perfon fo highly honoured of God; and
would be abundantly convinced of the
errors
[95]
C
<
<
6
.
errours of the Epicureans, who denied a
providence, and excluded God from the
government of the world; becauſe the
events of things could never have anfwered
to his predictions, if the world had been
left entirely to the government of chance.'
What words can more ftrongly expreſs any
man's opinion, than theſe do the fentiments
of Jofephus about Daniel? What one ſyllable
is there to difcredit the book under his name?
When he adds, I have wrote theſe things juft
as I found them, 'tis in my judgment, an ap-
peal to the world for the truth of them.
They were written by Daniel many years
before they happened; and the event proved
his prophecies to be true, and this correfpon-
dence of the prophecy and event, proved
the interpofition of God, and his providence
in the government of the world; which was
the very point Jofephus was labouring to
prove. And when he adds, But if any
one thinks otherwife, either disbelieves my
account, or is not convinced by it of
the reality of a providence, I am not the
perſon who will blame him; he writes
nothing to difcredit the book of Daniel,
but as an honeft man, who took the liberty
of
[96]
of judging for himſelf, and was willing
every man fhould enjoy an equal liberty.
So that the Schematift hath not yet proved,
neither can he prove, that Jofephus hath
difcredited his own relations, and made apo-
logies for himself, as reciting things incre-
dible. This is a mean fuppofition of his own,
who either never read the original of Jo-
fephus, or contented himſelf with an imper-
fect tranſlation of it. Jofephus, and the
Jewiſh nation, in his time, were fully con-
vinced that Daniel was a prophet, and that
the book that bears his name, was his work and
writing, and as much a part of their antient
canon of ſcripture as any other book what-
foever. All which, added to the former ar-
guments I have urged, give us, I apprehend,
fufficient fatisfaction in this matter, and in-
deed as much as, in an affair of fuch a na-
ture, we are capable of receiving.
Having thus eſtabliſhed the antiquity and
authority of Daniel's book, I now proceed
to the confideration of his particular pro-
phefies. The first is that mentioned
M
DAN.
[97]
:
DAN. ii. 44, 45.
And in the days of theſe kings ſhall the God of
heaven ſet up a kingdom, which ſhall never
be deftroyed; and the kingdom fhall not be
left to other people, but it ſhall break in
pieces and confume all thefe kingdoms, and
it shall ftand for ever.
Forafmuch as thou faweft that the ftone was
cut out of the mountain without hands,
and that it break in pieces the iron, the
brafs, the clay, the filver, and the gold, the
great God hath made known to the king
what shall come to pass hereafter.
IND
N the former part of this vifion, there
are
are four diftin&t kingdoms reprefented
by the ſeveral metals of the image; the gold,
the filver, the brass, and the iron. That the
two firſt are the Babylonian and Medo-Perfian,
all are agreed. As to the third and fourth,
learned men have differed. Grotius, and
others after him, make the third to be only
the kingdom of Alexander, and the fourth
the fame kingdom, under Grecian fucceffors,
particu-
N
[98]
particularly the Seleucida and Lagida: But
I apprehend they have not fully proved this
matter. That the third kingdom muft com-
prehend Alexander, and the Macedonian
princes that fucceeded him, feems plain,
becauſe the former kingdoms comprehended
all the fucceeding princes of the fame houfe,
and nation, even till the ruine of their em-
pire, and its tranſlation to the different prince
and nation, that fucceeded into the ſovereign
power, and dominion. The Chaldean, or
Babylonian empire continued fo long as the
Chaldeans held the other nations in Afia in
fubjection, from Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus.
Under Cyrus, the Perfian empire began, and
lafted till the Perfians themſelves fell under
the power of the Macedonians, under the
reign of Darius Codomannus, by whofe death,
and the conqueft of Afia by Alexander, the
the third, or Macedonian kingdom began ; be-
cauſe the Macedonians then became mafters
of the world, and of confequence the third
empire muft laft till the Macedonian power
was fubdued, and gave way to the fuperior
fortunes and valour of the Romans, under
whom began the fourth monarchy. And it
may with equal juftice be pretended, that Ne-
buchadnezzar
1
[99]
buchadnezzar, and his fucceffors, made dif-
ferent kingdoms, as that the kingdoms of
Alexander, and his fucceffors were diffe-
rent.
But Daniel himſelf ſeems plainly to deter-
mine this matter; for ſpeaking of the fame
kingdoms under the figure of beafts, he re-
preſents the third by a leopard, with four
wings, and four heads, and afterwards
diftinctly deſcribes the fourth, as diverfe
from all the beafts that were before it, chap.
vii. 6, 7. Theſe four heads according to Gro-
tius, were the four cheif captains of Alex-
ander, who fucceeded to his power, and of
conſequence must be comprehended in the
third kingdom, and cannot, according to the
exprefs words of Daniel, conftitute the
fourth; which fourth kingdom, was to break
in pieces the refidue, i. e. the leopard with its
four heads, or the remains of the Grecian
empire begun by Alexander, and continued
by his four chief commanders.
I hope our author, when he is at leiſure,
will explain this difficulty of the four headed
beaſt, repreſenting only the third empire, and
yet repreſenting at the fame time the fourth
N 2
alfo.
[ 100 ]
alfo. But as he only walks after Grotius,
I ſhall make a remark or two, upon that
learned man's interpretation, for his uſe, and
that he may walk after him with caution.
After he hath explained the beaft with four
heads, of Alexander and his four chief cap-
tains, he explains the fourth beaft to be the
kings of Syria and Egypt, becauſe they were
Macedonians, i. e. He feparates the body of
the beaft from the four heads, which altoge-
ther conftitute one kingdom, according to
Daniel, and fo makes the body without the
heads, and the heads without the body to be
two diftinct kingdoms. But that the four
heads may'nt be without a body, he tacks
them, Rifum teneatis, to the fourth beaft,
that had great iron teeth, and ten horns, and
fo makes the fourth kingdom, and half of
the third, to be one and the ſelf fame king-
dom. And it must be owned that Grotius,
and our learned author after him, by join-
ing four leopard's heads to this fourth beaft,
have made him much more dreadful and ter-
rible than even Daniel himſelf had ever de-
fcribed him.
}
·
Grotius
[101]
•
Grotius was very fenfible that the third
beaſt denoted the whole Macedonian empire
under Alexander and his fucceffors, and that
he could not make the fourth beaft to repre-
fent his fucceffors only, without confound-
ing the two kingdoms, which he therefore
expreffly does in his annotations upon chap.
viii. ver. 5. Hircus hic omnes Græcos figni-
ficat. Refpondet ergo hircus hic ventri & cru-
ribus ftatuæ; item Pardo & feræ quartæ ;
which remark entirely deftroys his own in-
terpretation, as being abfolutely contrary to
the moſt exprefs words of Daniel, who
every where ſpeaks of four diftin&t kingdoms,
which Grotius hereby reduces to three.
Nothing in nature can be more diftinct
than Daniel's account of the four kingdoms.
In Nebuchadnezzar's vifion they are denoted
by the ſeveral diftinct metals of gold, filver,
brass, and iron. In Daniel's vifion by four
different beafts, a lyon, a bear, a leopard with
four wings of a fowl, and four heads, and
the fourth by a beast exceedingly dreadful,
terrible and strong, or more fo than any of
the former, and diverfe from all the beafts
that were before it, even different from the
leopard
[102]
leopard with four wings and four heads: a
very natural repreſentation of theſe king-
doms, which were erected and ſupported by
rapine, cruelty, and blood. If therefore the
beaſt with four heads denoted one kingdom,
that kingdom which was firſt erected by one,
and continued under four fucceffors of the
fame nation, muſt be the kingdom intended;
and therefore the third kingdom cannot be
the kingdom under Alexander alone; but
that kingdom, which was begun by him,
and afterwards divided amongft his four prin-
cipal commanders; for the four wings and
four heads are the diftinguiſhing characteri-
fticks of this third kingdom.
#
This will appear yet more plain, if poffi-
ble, from the particular reprefentation given
of the third kingdom by Daniel chap. viii.
denoted by an he-goat, that had a notable
born between his eyes, upon the breaking of
which came up four other notable horns.
Every one fees how exactly this agrees with
the leopard with four wings and heads; and
'tis evident that the kingdom is reprefented
by the he-goat, and not by the horns, which
are only the circumftances to determine the
;
:
naturę
[103]
nature of it, and diftinguish it from the reft.
And therefore upon the breaking the firſt
horn, the he goat, the kingdom, ſtill ſubfifted,
and had four horns inftead of one, i. e. in-
ftead of being fubject to one abfolute mo-
narch, became divided and fubject to four.
Out of one of thefe four horns, or out of
one of the four families, that were to govern
this divided kingdom, came forth a little
horn, a prince, who, tho' at firſt, was of
little power or authority, yet was to grow ex-
ceeding great, and to be very oppreffive
of the pleaſant land, or the land of Judea,
which came to pafs under Antiochus Epi-
phanes. From hence 'tis plain, that this little
horn cannot be the fame horn mentioned
chapter vii. and that therefore they do not
relate to the fame kingdom. For the horn
mentioned in the viith chapter was not to
come out of one of the four horns, but a-
mongſt the ten, and to pluck up three of the
ten by the roots; and the deſcription of his
power, cruelty, and pride, is in every part
of it different from that given of the little
horn, chapter viii. And as it is expreffly faid,
that it ſhould be diverfe from the first, can-
not
[104]
not agree to Antiochus, who was in all re-
ſpects like his predeceffors the kings of Afia.
chap. ii. ver. 40.
After this, I fcarce need to fay any thing
more to prove that the fourth kingdom can-
not mean the fucceffors of Alexander. How-
ever, I obſerve once more, that the defcrip-
tion of the fourth kingdom doth by no means
agree to that of the Seleucida and Lagida.
The fourth kingdom fhall be strong as iron,
forafmuch as iron breaketh in pieces, and fub-
dues all things: and as iron that breaketh,
all theſe, ſhall it break in pieces and bruife,
The plain and only mean-
ing of which words is, that it fhould be a
more powerful and ftrong kingdom than any
of the former. Grotius's remark here, is
low: Dure tractabit fubditos, maxime vero
Judæos, referring the text, which deſcribes
the nature of the kingdom, to the cruelty
of ſome few of its princes. Let Daniel ex-
plain himſelf, and we fhall find ſomething
elfe manifeftly intended. He tells us,¨ cap.
vii. 7. I ſaw in the night visions, and be-
hold a fourth beaſt, dreadful and terrible,
and strong exceedingly, and it had great iron
teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and
Stamped the refidue with the feet of it, and
it
[105]
it was diverfe from all the beasts that were
before it, which he explains more particular-
ly, ver. 23. The fourth beast shall be the
fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be
diverfe from all kingdoms, and ſhall devour
the whole earth, and ſhall tread it down, and
break it in pieces. Now here are ſeveral
things that cannot agree to the kingdom of
the Seleucida and Lagida. As,
1. That it ſhould be dreadful and terrible,
and strong exceedingly, i. e. more ſo than the
preceeding kingdoms. This is not true in
fact; for the three former kingdoms, being
united under one fovereign prince, were
much more formidable and ftrong, than the
Macedonian empire, when divided under
feveral kings, who were almoft perpetually
at war with each other, and fo far from be-
ing able to enlarge their dominions, that
they could not often preferve what they
had.
2. Daniel tells us, that this fourth king-
dom ſhould devour and break in pieces, and
Stamp the residue with the feet of it. If.
Q
there
[106]
there be any meaning in the word
", it
muft fignify all that remained of the other
beaft or kingdom. And therefore the words
muft imply a real diffolution of the former
kingdoms, or a tranflation of the empire to
another family or nation.
But how was
this accompliſhed by the Selucida and La-
gida? How can they be faid to have broken
in picces the remains of Alexander's, or the
Macedonian kingdom, when they themſelves
divided and continued it, and were themſelves
Macedonians by family and birth? Whilft the
Macedonians held the fupreme power in the
world, the third empire fubfifted, juft as the Ba-
bylonian and Perfians did, whilft thoſe nations
preſerved their dominion and authority
over others.
3. The fourth kingdom is defcribed as
diverſe from all kingdoms that were before
it. Grotius interprets this expreflion by
multo fævior; much more cruel and fierce.
But this is not the proper meaning of the
words; and if it was, would not be true of
the fucceffors of Alexander. The plain
ſenſe of the expreffion is, that the fourth
kingdom
[107]
kingdom ſhould be of a different nature and
conftitution from the three former; founded
upon different maxims, and adminiftred in a
quite different manner. Whereas the Mace-
donian or Grecian kingdom was erected, conti-
nued, and governed by foveraign and abſolute
princes, juft in the fame manner as the other
two kingdoms had been before it. Or if we
admit the interpretation of Grotius, how
will our Schematist make it appear, that the
Macedonian princes were more fierce and
cruel than ſeveral of the Babylonian and
Perfian kings? Let the lives and actions of
thoſe princes be compared, and we ſhall find
a parallel to the very crueleft of the Grecian
princes. Or if multo favior relates to the
cruelty of the Macedonians towards the Jew-
ifh nation, yet was it much inferior to the
rage of Nebuchadnezzar, who deftroyed
their city, temple, and government, and
after a prodigious flaughter of that people,
carried them away from their own land,
into a feventy years captivity; a vengeance
never executed on them by any of the fuc-
ceffors of Alexander.
*
O 2
But
[ 108 ]
But our author will have it, that this
fierceness and breaking in pieces, muft re-
fer only to the land of Judea. It is repre-
ſented, ſays he, as exceedingly oppreffive, and
PARTICULARLY of the whole land of Judæa,
p. 161. and for this he quotes, Dan. vii.,7,
12, 23. I know not whether this learned
writer, hath any ancient MS, of the Hebrew
bible, that Grotius, and other authors have
never feen; not that he hath given the world
any reaſon to ſuſpect him upon this foot:
but I am fure he abuſes Daniel, if the copies
that I have ſeen be true. For Daniel is fo
far from mentioning, fo very particularly, the
whole land of Judea, that he never once fo
much as mentions it in the places cited, not
to ſay, that he could not poffibly intend it
there. The fourth kingdom, ver. 7. is re-
prefented as ftamping the refidue, or deftroy-
ing the other kingdoms. Grotius his com-
ment here is unworthy himſelf. Sævitia
denotatur in Judæos maxima. Si
quos vivos
reliquerat, eos fœde tractabat. For 'tis evi-
dent that the nature of the kingdom in ge-
neral is deſcribed, and not the cruelty of
one or two princes towards any particular
nation under their government; juſt as the
R
three
[109]
three former kingdoms are deſcribed in the
foregoing verfes. And if the refidue had re-
ferred to the remains of the Jewish nation,
there muſt have been mention made of it
before; fince 'tis little less than nonſenſe to
ſpeak of the remains of fomething never
named. I cannot imagine why he cites the
12th verfe, in which Judea can never be in-
tended. And as to the 23d, there is indeed
mention of the whole earth, which the
fourth beaſt was to devour, which according
to our critick, is, as I fuppofe, particularly
the whole land of Judea. But how the
whole earth ſhould be ſo very particularly
Judæa, deferves his farther explication.
I, who am content with more obvious
criticifms, will give him my reaſons, why I
apprehend the land of Judæa cannot be in-
tended.
3
1. Becauſe the like expreffion is ufed of
the former kingdom, viz. the third; con-
cerning which, 'tis declared, it shall bear
rule over all the earth, chap. ii. ver. 39.
which our Schematist himſelf, I dare fay, will
not explain of the land of Judea only. And
therefore
[ 110 ]]
therefore, when 'tis faid of the fourth king-
dom, that it fhall devour the whole earth,
and ſhall tread it down, and break it in pieces,
it fhould, methinks, mean literally the whole
earth, and not myftically the land of Judæa
in particular.
2. Becauſe Daniel himſelf explains the
whole earth to be the whole earth, and not
that little part of it called Judea. For
chap.ii. ver. 40. which is an exactly parallel
paffage, he thus defcribes the fourth kingdom.
It ſhall be ſtrong as iron, becauſe iron break-
eth in pieces, and fubdues every thing. And
as iròn thus breaks every thing in pieces, fo
it, viz. the fourth kingdom fhall כל אלן תרק
crumble into pieces, or break all theft, viz.
the three former kingdoms. The word j
is plural, and can refer to nothing else but
the former kingdoms; and thus the words
are explained in the 44th verſe, where 'tis de-
תדק כל אלן מולכותא clared of the sth kingdom
it ſhall break in pieces all theſe kingdoms.
Now the fimile would be but poor and low,
as well as the grammar falfe, if the meaning
was, as iron breaketh in pieces every thing,
fo
[II]
fo the 4th kingdom fhould break in pieces
particularly the land of Judæa. And therefore
as the expreffion doth and muft refer to the
kingdoms foregoing, 'tis a proper explica-
tion of this paſſage, chap. vii. ver. 23. It fhall
devour the whole earth, and ſhall tread it
down, and break it in pieces.
3. Becauſe the fourth kingdom, as fuch,
and not any particular prince of it, is repre-
fented as devouring the whole earth and tread-
ing it down. Now if this whole earth means
only Judea, the fact is not true. For the
Jews were very much favoured by ſeveral of
the Egyptian and Syrian kings, and fuffered
no more oppreffion than their neighbours,
except under Antiochus Epiphanes, who is
particularly prophefied of by Daniel: and it
ſeems very unaccountable, that the whole
fourth kingdom fhould be defcribed as ex-
ceedingly oppreffive of Judea, purely for
the fake of one or two particular princes.
4. Laftly, This account of the fourth king-
dom is exactly and literally true, if hereby
is denoted the Roman empire, which actually
did
[112]
did devour the whole earth, or bring all the
nations that conftituted the former king-
doms, and many others not ſubject to them,
under its dominion and power.
Upon the whole, 'tis, I think, abundantly
evident, that the third kingdom means the
whole Grecian empire under Alexander and
his captains. And I would farther obſerve,
in confirmation hereof, that the Jews feem
to be of the fame fentiment; for they call
the kingdom erected by Alexander, and di-
vided amongſt his followers, the Grecian
kingdom. Jofephus fpeaks of his captains as
Aregarder diadojo. And Grotius, in his
comment on Dan. vii.
on Dan. vii. 7. Etiam nunc
Hebræi ifta imperia uno nomine appellant
.Regnum Graecorum מלכות יון
The Roman writers, who have treated of
this affair, never imagined, that the kingdom
of Alexander, and his fucceffors, were two
diftinct kingdoms, but one and the fame,
even till the reduction of Syria into the
form of a Roman Province by Pompey.
Justin exprefly makes mention of the Per-
fian and Macedonian empires, and in his ac-
count of them agrees with the defcription
of
[113]
of Daniel. The Perfian empire he makes
to be founded by Cyrus, and to be ended
with the conqueft of Perfia, under Darius
Codomannus, by Alexander. Poftremo vi-
Etus ab Alexandro
vitam pariter cum Per-
farum regno finivit, 1. 10. c. 3. The next
empire he ſpeaks of is the Mecedonian, erected
by Alexander upon his conqueft of Perfia,
and continued under the Macedonian princes,
whom he often calls Alexandri fucceffores,
and whofe empire he exprefly denotes by Im-
perium Macedonicum, 1. 41. C. 2. And
when ſpeaking of Arfaces, the founder of the
Parthian empire, he adds, Sic Arfaces quæ-
fito fimul conftitutoque regno, non minus me-
morabilis Parthis, quam Perfis Cyrus, Macc-
donibus Alexander, Romanis Romulus, 7. 41.
c. 5. So that the Macedonian kingdom, or
Daniel's third kingdom, was that which was
begun by Alexander, and continued under
his Macedonian fucceffors; juft as the Roman
empire was that empire which was begun
by Romulus, and fupported and enlarged by
the power and conquefts of the Romans:
And theſe feveral empires received their
names, not from the founders of them, but
from the different nations, which from time
P
to
[ 114 ]
to time held the fupream authority and pow?
er. Several other teftimonies might be ad-
ded; but I will not be tedious in ſo plain a
matter.
I hope by this time it appears pretty
plain, that the third kingdom of Daniel muft
mean the whole Macedonian or Grecian king-
dom; the defcription of the 4th not being
in any manner applicable to the kingdoms
of the Seleucida and Lagida. But I can't
help farther obferving, that whereas Grotius
explains the ten horns of the fourth beaft, of
ten kings, five of Ptolemy's family, and five
of Seleuchus, which he particularly mentions,
'tis arbitrary, and without any foundation
of hiſtory. He hath omitted Antigonus, one
of the greateſt of Alexander's fucceffors,
and Demetrius his fon, who had often Phe-
nicia and Judea under their power; men-
tions Ptolemy Lagus and Philadelphus, who
were both friendly to the Jews, fo far were
they from devouring the whole earth; paffes
over feveral of the Syrian kings, to make
way for others, who had as little concern with
the Jews, as thofe he omits, particularly Se-
leuchus Callinicus, who doth not appear ever
to have been in Judea, or poffeffed the
country
[115]
country; and tho' he fays, that the ten kings
mentioned by him, c. vii. v. 7. are to be
found in the eleventh chapter; yet as he hath
found in that prophecy, ſeveral others, be-
fides thoſe ten, fuch as Antiochus Theus, Se-
leuchus Ceraunus, Philip of Macedon, &c.
Í cannot imagine why they ought not to be
brought in amongst the ten horns, as well as
thoſe that he hath mentioned and laftly,
that the ten horns cannot refer to Alexan-
der's fucceffors is abundantly plain; becauſe
in the deſcription of the third, or Macedo-
nian kingdom, under the image of a goat,
there is mention made only of the great horn,
which is the kingdom of Alexander, and of
four horns ftanding up in the room of that
one when broke, i. e. of the divifion of his
empire into four parts. Now if the ten
horns were ten Macedonian princes, it will
appear very ſtrange, that in a particular de-
ſcription of that empire, they fhould be en-
tirely omitted. The truth is, that Daniel's
prophecies do not relate to the fucceffion of
the princes, but to the nature of their empire.
Hence the Medo-Perfian is reprefented by
the arms, the Macedonian by a leopard with
P 2
four
[116]
four heads, and by a rough goat with one
horn, and four others ſprouting up in the fame
beaſt, upon the breaking of the firft; and
the fourth empire as different from all the
reft, for reaſons that fhall foon be men-
tioned.
I fhall only beg the reader's patience to ob-
ſerve once more Grotius his great exactneſs
in his accounting for Daniel's prophecies.
'Tis on, c. vii. p. 8. I confidered the horns,
and behold there came up amongst them ano-
ther little horn, before whom there were three
of the firſt horns pluckt up by the roots. This
little horn Grotius makes to be Antiochus
Epiphanes, and the three horns pluckt up by
him, to be Seleuchus, his brother; Demetri-
us the ſon of Seleuchus; and Ptolemy Phi-
lopater, of Egypt. Now that not one of
theſe can be intended, is moſt evident. For
Antiochus's elder brother Seleuchus
treacherouſly flain by Heliodorus, his trea-
furer, before Antiochus was come from
Rome; and Demetrius, the fon of Seleuchus,
did not ſtir for the kingdom of Syria till
Antiochus was dead, after which he was in
in poffeffion of the throne.
lemy ſuffered great loffes by
was
And tho' Ptof
Antiochus, yet
was
[117]
was he never able to conquer the Egypti
an kingdom, which Ptolemy was in poffeffi-
on of after the death of Antiochus. Beſides,
Grotius makes Antiochus Epiphanes to be
one of the ten horns, and at the fame time
that little born, that was to come amongst
the ten; whereas Daniel doth moſt evident-
ly diftinguifh them. But, not to enlarge on
this head,
}
If the third kingdom is the Grecian or
Macedonian, 'tis evident that the fourth
univerfal empire, which was fet up in the
world, and which is undoubtedly the fourth
kingdom in Daniel, muſt be the Roman,
which he deſcribes, cap. ii. 40-43. And
the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron,
forafmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and
fubdueth all things; and as iron that break-
eth all theſe, ſhall it break in pieces and
bruife. And whereas thou faweft the feet
and toes, part of potters clay, and part of
iron, the kingdom ſhall be divided, but there
ſhall be in it of the firength of the iron, for-
afmuch as thou faweft the iron mixed with
miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were
part of iron and part of clay, fo the kingdom
Shall
[ 118 ]
]
Shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And
whereas thou faweft iron mixed with miry
clay, they shall mingle themselves with the
feed of men, but they shall not cleave one to
another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
Concerning this kingdom, I would obferve
1. The nature of it in general. It shall be
Strong as iron, forafmuch as iron breaks in
pieces and weakens every thing; and therefore
as iron thus breaks in pieces, it, viz. the
fourth kingdom fhall crumble into pieces, and
break all theſe, i. e. the three former king-
doms. This deſcription agrees well to the
Roman empire, and the event anſwered this
prediction, for the Roman empire was vaftly
more extenſive and ſtrong, than any of the
preceeding three, and brought all the remains
of the Macedonian empire under its fub-
jection.
2. I would obferve, that Daniel feems to
divide it into three feveral periods. The firft
is this kingdom in its ftrong and flouriſhing
eftate, which feems to be denoted by the
iron legs before there was any thing of the
weakneſs
[119]
weakneſs of the clay in it.
The ſecond is
the fame kingdom, weakned by the divided
ftate of the empire, denoted by the feet, which
were part of potters clay, and part of iron; for
which reaſon the prophet tells us the kingdom
fhall be divided, tho' there should be in it fome-
what of the strength of iron, because the iron
was mixed with the clay. The third is the
fame empire, in a yet farther ftate of declen-
fion, during which one part of it was to be
abſolutely deſtroyed, denoted by the toes,
the extremity of the image; and of con-
fequence, the last period of this fourth
empire. As the toes of the feet were
part of iron, and part of clay, fo the king-
dom shall be partly strong, and partly broken ;
i. e. one part of this divided empire fhall re-
main, and the other part be entirely deſtroy-
cd. And as the laft period of this kingdom
is denoted by the toes, this feems to intimate
that the remaining part which was not bro-
ken, fhould be divided into ten diftinct king-
doms, or governments. This agrees well
with the account Daniel gives us, chap. vii.
Behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible,
and ſtrong exceedingly, or beyond any of the
reft
[120]
reft, as 'n' may be rendered; and it had
great iron teeth, it devoured and break in pieces
and stamped the refidue, all that remained of
the former kingdoms, and it was diverfe from
all the beafts that were before it ; firſt began
by kings, then under confuls and dictators,
then under emperors, then divided, then part-
ly destroyed, and at laft divided into ten leffer
kingdoms; for it had ten horns. I confidered
the horns, and behold their came up among ſt
them another little horn, diverfe from the
the reft, which by the after defcription of it,
feems to denote a power, which fhould be
of a different nature from all the reft. In
the two firſt empires there was nothing pe-
culiar; as the third was erected by Alex-
ander, and divided afterwards amongſt his
four principal commanders, therefore Da-
niel denotes it by a leopard with four heads ;
and as the fourth was to undergo very pe-
culiar alterations, he gave fuch a defcription
of it, as plainly points out theſe alterations
to us. So that in every refpect this account
of Daniel agrees with the circumftances of
the Roman empire, and cannot with any
truth
[ 121 ]
truth of hiſtory be applied to that of the Se
leucida and Lagida.
Florus, the Roman hiftorian, points out to
us this threefold period of the Roman empire,
and gives us in a few words the livelieft de-
ſcription of the great changes it underwent.
He tells us that it was in its higheſt ftrength
and glory to the conclufion of the Numan-
tine war.
That from thence to the times of
Marius and Sylla, it became like iron, grew
fierce and bloody, and was weakened by its
domeſtick ſlaughters and confufions; and that
at length it cruelly tore and devoured it ſelf
by the factions of Marius and Sylla, Cafar
and Pompey. Hactenus Populus Romanus
pulcher egregius pius fanctus atque magnifi-
cus: reliqua fecula, ut grandia æque, ita vel
magis turbida & fœda. Centum hos
priores, quibus Africam, Macedoniam, Sici-
liam, Hifpaniam domuit, aureos jure meri-
toque fateatur : Centum fequentes, ferreos
plane & cruentos, & fi quid immanius. See
Dan. ii. 40. and vii. 7. Quippe qui Jugur-
thinis, Cimbricis, Mithridaticis, Parthicis
bellis, Gallicis atque Germanicis-Grac
chanas, Drufianafque cades, ad hoc Servilia
Bella
[122]
Bella mifcuerunt; & nequid turpitudini defit
Gladiatoria. Denique in fe ipfe converfus,
Marianis atque Syllanis, novillime Pompeii
& Cæfaris manibus, quafi per rabiem & furo.
rem & nefas femet ipfe laceravit, lib. ii. c.
19. And in another place, ſpeaking of the
tranflation of the fupream power from the
people to the Cæfars, he tells us, that the
whole empire became difordered and fhocked
by civil wars, and engagements by land and
fca. Marco Antonio, Publio Dolabella con-
fulibus, imperium Romanum jam ad Cæfares
transferente fortuna, varius & multiplex civi-
tatis motus fuit. Quodque in annua cœli con-
verfione fieri folet, ut mota fidera tonent, ac
fuos flexus tempeftate fignificent; fic cum Ro-
manæ dominationis, i. c. humani generis con-
i.c.
verfione, penitus intremuit, omnique genere
difcriminum, civilibus, terreftribus ac nava-
libus bellis, omne imperii corpus agitatum
eſt, 1. 4. c. 3. Theſe words evidently point
out the diſtracted ſtate "and condition of the
Roman empire, thro' the rage, cruelty, and
ambition of fome of its particular comman-
ders. And as the moft bloody wars prepared
the way for the tranferring the fupream
power
[123]
power to the Cæfars, who entirely fwallow-
ed up the libertics of the people, this is juſt-
ly to be eſteemed as its laft period, denoted
by the toes, the very extremity of the image,
during which period the fifth kingdom was
to be erected by the God of heaven.
Others of the Roman writers intimate
much the fame with Florus; viz. that the em-
pire was in the moft flouriſhing and vigorous
ftate, to the time of the Afiatick war, after-
wards weakened by the introduction of wealth
and luxury, and at laſt moſt cruelly torn by
the civil wars of Marius and Sylla, Cafar
and Pompey. Livy tells us, of Cn. Man-
lius, quod difciplinam militarem omni genere
licentia corruperat. Neque ea fola infamia
erant, quæ in provincia procul ab oculis facta
narrabantur. Luxuriæ enim peregrine origo
ab exercitu Afiatico invecta in urbem eft.
After which he recites the feveral forts of
luxury that were introduced, lib. 39. cap. 6.
Juvenal dates the firſt corruption of the city
by luxury and lewdnefs from the fame
time:
Q =
Fam
[124]
Fampridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes
Et linguam & mores
Vexit, & ad Circum juffas proftare puellas..
And in another place,
Sat. iii. ver. 62, &c.
1
Nunc patimur longæ pacis mala; fævior armis
Luxuria incubuit, victumque ulcifcitur orbem.
Nullum crimen abeft, facinufque libidinis, ex quo
Paupertas Romana perit.
Sat. vi. ver. 9r, &c.
Saluft is more exprefs, who tells us, Labore
atque juftitia refpublica crevit; reges magni
bello domiti; nationes fera & popali ingen-
tes vi fubacti. That afterwards primo pecu-
niæ, dein imperii cupido crevit. Ea quafi
materies omnium malorum fuere. And that
at laft, Poftquam L. Sulla armis recepta re-
publica, rapere omnes, trahere, domum alius,
alius agros cupere ; neque modum, neque mo-
deftiam victores habueres fæda, crudeliaque
in cives facinora facere. In Bel. Catilin.
If
[ 125 ]
If then this 4th kingdom denotes the Ro-
man empire, 'twill be eafy to difcern, which
must be the fifth, efpecially if we confider
the defcription given of it. In the days of
theſe kings shall the God of heaven ſet up a
kingdom, which shall never be destroyed, and
the kingdom ſhall not be left to other people,
but it shall break in pieces and confume all
theſe kingdoms, and it shall ftand for ever.
Forafmuch as thou faweft the stone was cut
out of the mountain without hands, and that it
brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay,
the filver and the gold, the
great God hath
made known to the king, what ſhall come to.
pafs hereafter. That this kingdom means
the kingdom of the Meffiah, may, I think,
be made extreamly probable by many con-
fiderations. As,
•
1. Becauſe this was the only univerfal.
kingdom, ever pretended to be erected, fince
the Roman empire; and of fuch a kingdom
the prophecy manifeftly ſpeaks, when it tells
us, that it ſhall break in pieces and confume
all thefe kingdoms, the iron, the brass, the
clay, the filver and the gold.
2. From
[126]
2. From the time of its commencement,
which I think the prophecy abſolutely de-
termines. As the Roman empire was at
first to be as iron, firm and ftrong, and to
fubdue the world by its power, fo afterwards
it was to degenerate, and to loſe its firft
ſtrength and vigour; to be like iron and clay,
divided in it felf, and therefore of a much
weaker conftitution than before and yet
nevertheleſs it was to have in it of the
Strength of iron, because the iron was mixed
with the miry clay. It was in this ftate of
the Roman empire, that the kingdom of the
God of heaven was to be erected. This
Daniel exprefly affirms. For after he had
declared, whereas thou faweft iron mixed with
miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with
the feed of men, but they shall not cleave one
to another, even as iron is not mixed with
clay; or whereas fome of the princes of this
empire fhall endeavour to unite and ftrengthen
themſelves by intermarriages, they ſhall not
agree, but divide and weaken it by their
diffentions and wars. He adds, In the
days of thefe kings, ſhall the God of heaven
Set
[127]
Set up a kingdom. i. e. during the continu-
ance of the Roman empire, but in the days
of thoſe kings or princes that govern'd it,
when tho' it had of the ftrength of iron, yet
was in a ſtate of great declenfion from its
original firmnefs and vigour. At this feafon,
when the ruine of the liberties of mankind,
and the Roman empire it felf was fixed and
determined, by the introduction of the im-
perial abfolute power, did the kingdom of
our bleffed Saviour begin, and to this day
hath never been deſtroyed.
So that our author's explication of theſe
words, In the days of thefe kings, by In the
days of the Seleucida and Lagidæ, is far from
being proved by him, or true in it felf. And
when he asks, IVhere were there more kings
than one of one kingdom at a time, but in the
kingdom of the Seleucide and Lagidæ, the
queſtion is impertinent; becaufe Daniel's pro-
phecy doth not fay, that there fhould be more
governors than one at a time, in the fourth
kingdom, when the kingdom of the God
of heaven fhould be erected; but that it
fhould commence in the days of thoſe kings
or princes, who governed this empire in its
laft
[ 128 ]
laft period, or moft declining ſtate, when
tho' there was fomewhat of the firmneſs of
✔
iron, yet there was a great mixture in it of
the miry clay. When he asks farther, How
could any kingdom fet up amongst the Ro-
mans, be then faid to be fet up in the days
of those kings: I answer, that it was never
prophefied, that the fifth kingdom ſhould be
fet up in the days of the Seleucida and La.
gida, but on the contrary, during the being
of the fourth kingdom, and in that ftate of
it which I have before deſcribed. And if
the God of heaven did fet up a fifth king-
dom, during this ſtate of the Roman empire,
it muſt be the kingdom of the prince Meffias,
which was then crected, and befides which
there was no other that was erected.
Under this head I would obferve, that the
period fixed by Daniel, for the erection of
the fifth kingdom, abſolutely demonſtrates,
that this fifth kingdom cannot be the Roman
empire, and that the inference of the Sche-
matiſt, p. 164. is falſe, viz. If then the God
of heaven fet up a fifth kingdom in the days
of the mentioned kings, he fet up then the Rọ-
man kingdom upon the ruins of the kingdom
2
of
[129]
of the Seleucida and Lagida. For the Ro-
man empire was not erected, or begun, or
fet up under any of the Seleucida and La-
gida, but long before thoſe families had a
name, or being in the world. I defire my
reader to obſerve, that the prophecy ſpeaks
of the first rife of the sth kingdom, what-
ever kingdom that was, and not of a king-
dom come to its full power and ſtrength:
it was to be at firſt no more than a ſtone in
comparison of a mountain ; its beginnings
were to be ſo very fmall as to be fcarce
difcernible, like a stone cut out of a moun-
tain, as without hands, which no one could
perceive the forming or fhaping of; and that
this rife was to happen in the days of thoſe
kings that governed the fourth empire in its
declining ſtate. And by confequence the
Roman empire can never be intended, which
tho' it had very fmall beginnings, yet was ſo
far from being begun during the continu-
ance of the fourth kingdom, that the rife of
it was before the erection of the firft, or Ba-
bylonian empire. But if the fifth kingdom
is that of the prince Meffias, it exactly agrees
with Daniel's account; it aroſe with im-
perceptable
R
[130]
perceptable beginnings, and in the days of
thoſe princes that governed the 4th empire,
in that period of it which is reprefented by
the iron mixed with miry clay. But,
3. This fifth kingdom appears to be that
of the Meffias Jefus, from the entire de-
ſcription of it, every part of which agrees
to the kingdom of Jefus, and to no other.
As,
1. It was to be a kingdom fet up by the
God of heaven. The other four were crect-
ed by the power and policy of earthly kings
and princes, and ſupported by rapine, cruelty
and bloodshed, and were therefore fitly de-
noted by ravenous beafts. This was to be
raifed immediately by God, and of confe-
quence by methods more fuitable to his na-
ture and perfections, that it might appear to
be by his immediate interpofition, or that
the power might be feen to be of God and
not of Man.
>
But here the Schematist objects, that as
to God's Setting up the kingdom of the Ro-
mans, it is no more than what is faid of
Nebuchadnezzar's,
[131]
Nebuchadnezzar's, or the Babylonian king-
dom, and an expreffion fuited to the notion
of the Jews, who attributed all great events
directly to God. Undoubtedly the Jews are
very right in afcribing the government of the
world to God, and in making the ſtate of
nations to depend on the difpofal and order-
ance of his providence; and I fhould think
that every confiderate Deift muſt do ſo too.
I am fure none but downright Materialifts
or Atheists can deny it. As to the former
part of the objection, I would obferve that
our author's remark is not true; for Daniel's
expreffion to Nebuchadnezzar is, the God of
heaven hath given thee a kingdom; which
is vaftly different from that made ufe of with
reſpect to the fifth, the God of heaven ſhall fet
up a kingdom; as different as God's permit-
ting a tyrannical prince to crect an empire
by force of arms, is from God's erecting by
his own power a kingdom for himſelf. This
difference will appear more plain from the
viith chapter, ver. 13, 14. where Daniel faw
one like the fon of man, who came with the
clouds of heaven, and came to the ANTIENT
OF DAYS, who gave him dominion and glory,
R 2
that
[ 132 ]
that all languages fhould ferve him. I infift
on the plain and literal ſenſe of this paſſage,
which is, that the 5th kingdom was the imme-
diate donation of the ancient of days to one
like the fon of man, and of conſequence im-
mediately raiſed by the power of God him-
felf. But,
2. This kingdom was never to be destroyed,
but to stand for ever, which defcription is
not true of the Babylonian, Perfian, Mace-
donian, or Roman empires, which are all of
them fallen long fince under the ruins of
their own weight. Our author hath indeed
accounted, in his way, p. 164. for this part
of the deſcription, when he tells us, This
feems a proper application of the Jews to
the Romans, who were their great protectors
and allies, and who could not but be pleafed
to be told of the durableness of their kingdom.
But it unfortunately happens, that this pro-
phecy was delivered before ever the Jews
had heard of the Roman name; or ſuppoſing
I ſhould allow that the book of Daniel was
written in the time when this Author would
have it, i. e. the time of the expiration of the
feventy weeks, and the death of Antiochus
Epiphanes,
[133]
Epiphanes, yet the reafon he affigns, why
the author of the book of Daniel fpeaks of
the durableness of the Roman empire cannot
be true, viz. his paying a complement tỏ the
Romans, the great protectors and allies of the
Jews. For the Romans afforded no protecti-
on to the Jews against the attempts of An-
tiochus, who after he had been forbidden by
Popillius, the Roman Ambaſſador, to pro-
ceed in his deſigns againſt Ægypt, vented
all his fury and indignation againſt the Jewiſh
nation; prophaning their temple, and putting
many of them to death in the moft cruel
and barbarous manner. Nor doth it appear
that the Jews ever made any league with the
Romans, till three or four years after the
death of Antiochus, viz. under the Govern-
ment of Judas Maccabeus. Nor did they
receive much benefit from this alliance, be-
ing, after this, often harraffed by the Syrian
princes, who flew Judas and Jonathan,
and made frequent invafions, particularly in
the time of John Hircanus, thirty years af
ter Antiochus Epiphanes's death, when the
Jews were in danger of being entirely extirpa-
ted by Antiochus Sidetes; nor did they re-
ceive
[134]
ceive any particular favours from the Romans
till about nine years after. But Daniel's
real fenfe will be more plainly determined
by the next words.
3. It was not to be left to any other people.
It was to be erected by God in a peculiar
manner, and to extend it felf over all the
nations, and ftill to confift of the fame pea-
ple, without any alteration or change of their
name. What this people were to be, and by
what name to be called, the prophet exprefly
declares, in a fecond reprefentation of this
kingdom; a name, I apprehend, not very
applicable to the Roman people, Chap. vii.
ver. 17, 18, Thefe great beafts, which are
four, are four kings, or kingdoms, which
Shall arife out of the earth. But the faints
of the most high ſhall take the kingdom, and
poffefs the kingdom for ever, even for ever
and ever. I am apt to think that our Sche-
matiſt muſt take the mystick and allegorical
way, to make the faints of the most high,
to be a deſcription of the Romans. And
yet of fuch faints was this sth kingdom to
confift, and never to depart from them; a
character
[ 135 ]
character that expreffly determines the na-
ture of the kingdom, and by whom it was
to be erected and governed.
4. The manner of its rife and progreſs
fhews the nature of this kingdom. It was
to be as a stone cut out of a mountain with-
out hands. Its firſt beginnings were to be
but ſmall, as aftone in compariſon of a moun-
tain. It was to be cut out of the mountain.
This expreffion by it felf, faith our author, I
confefs, feems not very intelligible; and he
thinks Grotius his expofition to be too preca-
rious, and not clear enough to build any hypo-
thefis upon, p. 165. I agree with him that
Grotius his comment is quite foreign to the
fenſe of Daniel, who I think hath very
plainly interpreted himſelf. For in the 35th
verfe, the great mountain evidently fignifies
a large empire or kingdom. Latiffimum im-
perium, faith Grotius; and therefore it muft
denote the fame herc; and the ftone cut out of
the mountain, means, that the sth kingdom
fhould arife out of the 4th, or in the very
Roman empire it felf. It was not only to
commence during the being of the 4th king,
dom,
[136]
dom, but actually to arife out of it; which
defcription is ſo very particular that it can
agree to nothing elfe but the kingdom of our
Lord, which arofe out of the Roman empire,
and gradually ſpread it ſelf all over it. Again,
It was to be cut out without hands. Begun
by no human power, but, as it were, invifi-
bly by God himself; yet at laft to grow fo ex-
tenfive, as to comprehend within it felf the
four empires before mentioned. The ac-
compliſhment of which part of the prophecy
every one will difcern without my farther
pointing it out.
But the Schematist objects, This kingdom
of God to be fet up reprefented by the ſtone,
cannot be the kingdom of the Meffiah Jefus,
becauſe his kingdom is not like the kingdoms
Daniel ſpeaks of. Daniel Speaks of empires
or kingdoms ſet up and preferved by human
policy, and by force of arms. Whereas Jeſus's
kingdom is a spiritual kingdom. I answer,
this would be to the purpoſe, if true. But
the prophecy it felf abfolutely determines
the difference. The four kingdoms were of
the kind he mentions. But the fifth king-
dom was to be of a quite different nature,
and
[137]
and to confift of fuch a people, as were not
to be governed by worldly policy and force.
I appeal to Daniel.
As to its erection, the kingdom was to
be set up by the God of heaven. Surely
the literal meaning of theſe words can
never be, It fhall be fet up by worldly
policy and force. As it was to be erected
by God, ſo it was to be governed in an
human, gentle manner. The kingdom was
to have nothing in it of brutal cruelty and
fierceness, but to be given to one, who ap-
peared like the fon of man, to one beloved
of the antient of days, whom all nations
and languages were to ferve. The ſubjects of
this kingdom were alfo to be of a different
character from thofe of the former. They
were to be faints, holy and good men; they
were to take the kingdom, or as Daniel ex-
preſſes it elſewhere, the kingdom ſhould not be
left to any other people. How vaftly different
is this entire deſcription from what is given
of the other kingdoms, all reprefented by
furious and ravenous beafts? 'Tis indeed faid
that it ſhould break in pieces and confume all
the former kingdoms, i. e. it fhould put an
S
end
[ 138 ]
end to all the univerfal monarchies of the
earth, even to that of the Romans them-
felves. This was effected by the revolt of
feveral of the Provinces, and by the incurfi-
ons of the barbarous nations into others, till
at laſt the Roman empire, after innumerable.
wars, was torn and divided into feveral leffer
kingdoms, many of which remain, even to
this day.
In the room, and upon the ruines of theſe
former kingdoms, the sth univerfal mo-
narchy was to be erected. All nations,
people, and languages, were to ferve him,
who appeared like the son of man. But
how were they to ferve him? Not by being
reduced by force of arms, but by becom-
ing Saints. This was to be the facred
people under his care, from whom the king-
dom was never to paſs away to others; and
of confequence this kingdom was to be crect-
ed and fupported by quite different methods
and maxims from any of the former. And
therefore as the breaking in pieces and con-
fuming, ſpoken of, Dan. ii. 44. means only
the diffolution of the former kingdoms, fo
when the sth is particularly deſcribed
chap.
[139]
chap. vii. there is not one expreffion made uſe
of, that conveys to us the leaft notion of tem-
poral dominion and power.
But however, all that I have faid may
perhaps paſs for nothing. For what doth
it fignify to talk of the kingdom of a
Meſſiah, if that kingdom is not yet fet up,
as the Schematift infinuates, p. 166, &c. I
perfectly agree with him, that the chief
rule we feem to have from the New Tefta-
ment, whereby to know, whether this king-
dom is commenced or not, is to confider,
what is promiſed to be done on, or after, its
commencement, and if the things are done
as promifed, we have then a right to say,
the kingdom of Chriſt is come; but if the
things are not yet done, we have no right
to say, the kingdom of Chrift is come.
Two of the reafons he mentions, to
prove that the kingdom of Chrift is not
come, are very acute. Mr. Whiston fays,
Christ's kingdom of righteousness was not
fet up in the year 1716. And Dr. Hare
fays, Chrift is to have no kingdom, till after
the day of judgment. This reafoning I can-
S 2
*
not
[140]
\
not answer: His other objections I think I
can; for the feveral texts of fcripture he hath
produced, either relate to very different
things, than thofe for which he cites them,
and are nothing to his purpoſe, or prove
the contrary to what he cites them for.
The coming of the Son of man fome-
times denotes his coming to deftroy the
Jews, Matt. xxiv. fometimes his appearance
to the univerfal judgment, Matt. xxv. In
like manner the kingdom, and the kingdom
of God, denote the Gofpel ftate, Luke xiii.
28. Sometimes the kingdom of heavenly
glory, Matt. xXV. 34, &c. Our author
hath injudiciouſly confounded theſe things,
either for want of underſtanding, or faith-
fully repreſenting the fenfe of the paffages
he cites, and that without caring whether
they make for him or against him. And
therefore to prove that the kingdom of
Chrift is not come, he urges feveral paf-
fages of ſcripture, that prove the very thing
he is arguing againſt.
Thus the things promifed are, that Jery-
falem should be compaffed with armies, which
prediction a man of common underſtanding
would
[ 141 ]
would be apt to think accompliſhed in the
ſiege of Jerufalem by the Romans, which is
the very thing prophefied of in ſome of the
places he cites. That the fon of man ſhall
come in a cloud, i. e. with a quick motion,
fee Literal Scheme, p. 172. with power and
great glory, and his holy angels with him.
He might have added, that the fun should
then be darkened, and the moon should not
give her light, that the stars should fall from
heaven, and that the powers of the heavens
Should be shaken. But this was not to his
purpoſe, and would have led his reader to
the true interpretation of this whole paffage.
The other text that he cites, he appears to
have not the leaſt knowledge of. Many from
the east and west, from the north and from
the fouth, shall fit down with Abraham,
Ifaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God, but
the Jews themſelves fhould be ſhut out. Had
he but confidered, that the Gospel difpenfation
is repreſented under the notion of a feaft;
and that thoſe were the true Jews in the
fight of God, who imitated the faith and piety
of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, he would
have known the meaning of fitting down
with them in the kingdom of God, and could
himſelf
[142]
himſelf have pointed out the accompliſhment
of the prophecy. This impertinent objection
againſt the coming of Chrift's kingdom would
have been ſpared, and he would have him-
ſelf underſtood when the kingdom of God
was come.
So that the notion of the actual com-
mencement of Chrift's kingdom is not con-
futed; nor is our author, with all his little
skill, able to confute it. Jerufalem hath
been emcompaſſed with armies, the fon of
man did come with the clouds of heaven,
Jefus his difciples did fit down at his table,
and many also from all corners of the world,
with Abraham, &c. according to the literal,
i. e. the primary and true ſenſe of the words.
Nor is this notion confuted by what Jeſus
faid to his difciples, It is not for you to know
the times and feafons. Their qucftion was
about a temporal kingdom, his anſwer a
check to their curiofity, and implies only
that his kingdom was not of this world;
but doth not carry the leaſt infinuation, that
his real kingdom, which is feated in the hearts
of men, was not then commenced, or
would not ſoon.
Whether
[ 143 ]
Whether it is, or not, we may learn from
our Lord himſelf. Our author tells us, It
fhould feem that his kingdom was not ſet up
at his afcenfion, first because it is no where
faid fo. It is true, that it is no where faid,
that Chriſt's kingdom was fet up at his aſcen-
fion; but there are many paffages which de-
clare that it was erected, and when.
I ap-
peal to the following. After John was put
in prifon, Jefus came into Galilee, preaching
the Gospel of the kingdom of God, Mark i. 14.
If I caft out devils by the ſpirit of God, then
the kingdom of God is come unto you, Matt.
xii. 28. He went throughout every city and
village, preaching and fhewing the glad ti-
dings of the kingdom of God, Luke viii. 1.
He called his twelve diſciples, and fent them
to preach the kingdom of God, Luke ix. 2.
I tell you of a truth, there be fome standing
here, which shall not taste of death, till they
fee the kingdom of God, Luke ix. 27. The fon of
man coming in his kingdom, Matt. xvi. 28. The
law and the prophets were until John, fince
that time the kingdom of God is preached,
and every man preffeth into it, Luke xvi. 16.
and when he was demanded of the Phari-
fees, when the kingdom of God should come,
he
[144]
he anſwered them and faid, the kingdom of
God cometh not with obfervation, i. e. with
external pomp and grandure. For behold
the kingdom of God is within you, Luke
xvii. 20, 21. And to add nothing more, Je
fus answered, My kingdom is not of this
world; and when Pilate faid to him, Art
thou a king then, Jefus anſwered, Thou fayeſt
that I am a king, John xviii. 36, 37.
His laft argument against the actual com-
mencement of Chrift's kingdom fo foon as
his afcenfion, argues his great impartiality
and regard to truth. The contrary, ſaith he,
feems implied by the Chriftians waiting, after
his afcenfion, for his coming in his kingdom,
citing, 1 Cor. i. 7. Would not one expect
fome mention of Chrift's kingdom in this
paffage he refers to? Can any reader ima-
gine that there is not one word about it in
the text? The paffage is plain in St. Paul,
and carries its own meaning. Te come be-
waiting for the coming of
our Lord Jefus Chrift, who ſhall confirm you
to the end, that ye may be blameless in the
day of our Lord Jefus Chrift. What this day
hind in no gift,
and
[145]
and coming refers to, the reader may learn
from the fame apoftle, Phil. iii. 20.
But all this, fays he, will yet appear more
clearly from the confiderations, which I shall
give you on the next prophecy, which confi-
*derations I fhall reconfider. The prophecy
is a clear and literal one of the Meffiah.
H
DANIEL
[146]
DANIEL Vii. 13, 14
I faw in the night visions, and behold, one
like the fon of man, came with the clouds
of heaven, and came to the ancient of
days, and they brought him near before
him.
And there was given him dominion and glory,
and a kingdom, that all people, nations,
and languages fhould ferve him: his domi
nion is an everlasting dominion, which
Shall not pass away, and his kingdom that
which shall not be destroyed.
TH
HIS prophecy, at first view, contains
the following particulars. (1.) A per-
fon like the Son of man, or one like a man,
brought in a folemn manner before the an-
cient of days. (2.) His inveftiture into a
kingdom. (3.) His being made king of all
nations, people, and languages, and (4.) His
being put into poffeffion of a kingdom, that
ſhould not pass away, or ever be deftroyed.
The application is obvious and certain.
The
[ 147 ]
But
The Son of man here, the Biſhop, and
others, will have to be the Meffiah.
our author, as ufual, will confute the preten-
ces of the Biſhop, and of all others, who lay
any stress on this place, as literally relating
to a Meffias, and in particular to the Meffias
Jefus. And he obferves,
1. That whereas the four first kingdoms
are reprefented in a vision to Daniel, under
the image or ſymbol of beaſts; the fifth is re-
preſented to him under the image or Symbol
of a man, or ſon of man, (fon of man, as he
learnedly obferves from P. Simon and Le
Clerc, being an Hebrew idiom for a man, and
So uſed even in the New Teftament) which
image or ſymbol I conceive, after Grotius,
fignifies the Roman kingdom. But here his
conceptions are moftly wrong, and I would
obferve in my turn, that he is extreamly
unhappy in his criticifms, there not being a
fingle inſtance in the New Teftament where
the words fon of man are not uſed as the
chracteriſtick of Chrift. His conception, af-
ter Grotius, that fon of man fignifies the
Roman kingdom, is a proof either that he
I 2
never
[148]
never read Grotius with any care, or did
not underſtand him. Grotius never imagined
that fon of man was a fymbol to denote the
Roman kingdom, but Populus Romanus, the
Roman people, to whom Deus dedit impe-
rium maximum. But let us take it for
grant-
ed that it doth fignify the Roman kingdom,
according to this excellent critick, and then
fee how the prophecy will run. I faw in
the night vifions, and behold one like the fon
of man, i. e. the Roman kingdom, came to
the ancient of days, and there was given to
him dominion and glory, and a kingdom.
The ancient of days gave to the kingdom a
dominion, glory, and a kingdom. What
an excellent critical interpreter of ancient
and modern authors is this writer? How fit
to be fet at the head of the oppoſers of
chriſtianity? No prophecy can ſtand in the
way of ſuch an antagoniſt, who thus dex-
trouſly manages his friends and foes, and uſes
both with equal fincerity and mercy.
But he hath his arguments as well as his
authorities. He conceives that the fymbol
of the Son of man fignifies the Roman king-
dom, becauſe hereby the author of Daniel
paid
[149]
paid a compliment to the Romans. But if
this conception makes the whole paffage of
Daniel to be nonfenfe, as I have fhewn it
doth, then this can never be a good reafon.
Befides, let the fon of man fignify the Ro-
man people, and not the kingdom, this affer-
tion will appear trifling and impertinent. For
as the complement ftood in the book of
Daniel, it was written in Chaldee, and our
author hath not quoted a fingle writer to
prove it was ever tranflated into Greek or
Latin, and fent up to the Roman fenate.
And indeed the compliment would have
been very curious and courtly if it had.
We the governours and people of the Jews
denote the former monarchies by several
beafts, but yours, O ye Romans, by a man.
'Tis impoffible the Romans could ever have
denied their alliance and friendſhip to ſo very
polite a nation. He adds,
2. This was agreeable to the Jews way of
underſtanding the conftitution of the Roman
government. They committed their govern-
ment to one man every year, and they had
neither envy nor emulation amongst them.
There-
[ 150 ]
Therefore the fifth kingdom, in Daniel, is
the Roman empire, or therefore the Jews
repreſented the Roman empire by a man.
This is ſuch profundity and depth of reafon-
ing, that no genius, but one ſo vaſt as his,
can ever comprehend, or poffibly anſwer.
The worst of it is, that this prophecy was
delivered before the Jews had any knowledge
either of the Roman name or nation; not to
mention that the Babylonian and Perfian
empires were governed by one man, and
may therefore be underſtood with equal rea-
fon by the ſymbol of the ſon of man. But,
3. It was very poſſible, fays he, that the
Jews might in the time when the book of
Daniel was wrote, be of that fentiment,
which it appears Jofephus was of, viz. That
God had left the Jews, and was gone over
to the Romans. And for this he cites
Jofephus, l. ii. c. 10. in which place theſe
words are not one of them to be found.
ever any writer make fo many wretched
blunders? But I forgive him, fince as his learn-
ing rifes no higher than an Engliſh tranſla-
tion, I fuppofe he followed the miſtake of
Did
Wille
[ 151 ]
Willes in his firſt diſcourſe before L'Eftange's
Jofephus. The paffage he refers to, is, De
Bel. Jud. l. iii. c. 8. §. 3.
from the fuccefs of the
where Jofephus,
Romans, in his
prayer to God, acknowledges,‹ That he the
more readily furrendered himſelf into their
hands, becauſe it was the pleaſure of God,
who first formed the Jewish nation, now
<
.
С
to depreſs it, and give the empire to the
· Romans'. It is evident from hence, that
Jofephus fpeaks of this as his' private ſenti-
ment, and that the reafon of this his belief
was, the greatnefs of the Roman power,
and the wickedness of the Jewish nation.
Now unleſs our author can prove that there
ever was a time when this was the general
fentiment of the Jews; or that the book of
Daniel was written, about this time when
Jofephus furrendered to the Roman officers,
his faying, It was very poffible it might be
fo and fo, can prove nothing elfe, but that
it is very poffible, and more than poffible,
that he will invent, and ſay any thing true
or falſe, to fupply the want of true learn-
ing and ſolid argument.
The
[152]
\
The Jews had lived in a great meaſure
free in the enjoyment of their religion and
liberties, without any diſturbance from the
Romans, till after the death of Herod the
Great, and could have no reaſon to think
that God had forfaken them. Yea, in their
greateft extremity they were far from think-
ing fo; immediately before the deftruction
of the city, ſeveral thouſands went into the
temple, there expecting to ſee the ſigns of
their deliverance, and depended on receiving
help from God, Jof. de Bel. Jud. l. vi.
<
<
c. s. The fame Jofephus tells us, That the
principal reaſon that excited the Jews to
the rebellion, was an oracle in the facred
writings, that about that time one ſhould
' come from their country, that fhould pof-
<
c
C
ſeſs the empire of the world, Ibid. §. 4'.
If our author's defign in this extraordinary
paffage was to infinuate that Daniel's pro-
phecies were written about this time, I paſs
it by with the filence and contempt it
deferves.
As to the terms fon of man, and kingdom
of God, I have, I think demonftrated, that
the one cannot fignify the Roman people,
nor
[153]
nor the other the Roman empire, and there-
fore they muft fignify a kingdom of God's
erecting, given to one who appeared as the
Son of man, and are therefore juftly applied
in that fenfe by the New Teftament writers.
And lastly, whereas the ſon of man in Da-
niel, is ſaid to come with the clouds of heaven
to the ancient of days, and to have his king-
dom conferred on him, all this hath taken
place, if underſtood of Jesus; whoſe king-
dom is long fince fet up, was raiſed with an
amazing ſwiftneſs of progrefs, lafts to this
day, in ſpite of all the attempts of infidelity,
and fhall laft till all his implacable enemies
are put under his feet. But having gone thro'
theſe prophecies, we
now come to the fa-
mous prophecy of the feventy weeks.
U
DANIEL
[ 154 ]
:
DANIEL ix. 24, 25, 26, 27.
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy peo
ple, and upon thy holy city, to finish the
tranfgreffion, and to make an end of fins,
and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
to bring in everlasting righteoufness, and
to feal up the vifion and prophecy, and to
anoint the most holy.
Know therefore and understand, that from the
going forth of the commandment to restore
and to build Jerufalem, unto the Meffiah
the prince, ſhall be ſeven weeks, and three-
Score and two weeks; the ſtreet ſhall be built
again, and the wall, even in troublous
times.
And after threescore and two weeks Shall
Meffiah be cut off, but not for himſelf:
and the people of the prince that ſhall come,
Shall deftroy the city and the fanctuary, and
the end thereof shall be with a floud, and
unto the end of the war defolations are de
termined.
And
[155]
And he shall confirm the covenant with many
for one week: and in the midst of the week
he ſhall cauſe the facrifice and the oblation
to cease, and for the overspreading of abo-
minations, he shall make it defolate, even
until the confummation, and that deter-
mined fhall be poured upon the defolate.
HIS prophecy, our author tells us,
Tis
is the ſheet anchor of the cause. And
here, as uſual, he will confute all pretences
for a literal prophecy of Chrift. His expli-
cation feems perfectly to hit of Daniel's my-
ftery, and the event of Jefus cannot be found
in it, without doing the utmoſt violence to
the text, in every part of it.
Rifu omnes, qui aderant, emoriri: denique
Metuebant omnes jam me.
TERENCE Eun. Act ii. Scene i.
But perhaps all this may be mere blufter;
and indeed, tho' I will not pretend ſo to ac-
count for this prophecy, as to clear it of
all difficulty; yet I am apt to think, that he
hath
U 2
[156]
hath not so nicely hit things as he imagines,
and that his explication of it is precarious,
extravagant, and falfe. And I fhall begin
with giving a critical explication of the paf-
fage, agreeable to the grammar and genuine
fenſe of the words of it.
once in נחתך
Seventy weeks nn, but once used in the
Old Testament, explained by Buxtorf, and
other Lexicographers, decifa, determinata;
or, as Grotius, definitæ funt, are determined,
or precifely fixed, upon thy people, and upon
thy holy city; to finish ad cohibendum,
to put a flop to hypocrify, or fin; to feal up
tranfgreffions, viz. either by the attonement to
be made for it, or by the exemplary puniſh-
ment to be inflicted on the offenders; to make
reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlaſt-
ing righteousness, and to feal up the vifion
and the prophet, i. e. to accompliſh all the
prophetical predictions, and to anoint the moſt
holy. Know therefore, and understand, from
the going forth of the commandment, fo
uſed in many places of fcripture, particular-
ly, ver. 23. uns to make them return, and
to build up Jerufalem unto Meffiah the prince,
or the anointed prince, ſhall be ſeven weeks
and
[157]
ואין לו
a תשוב
and fixty two weeks. There ſhall be a
return. The street fhall be built again and
the wall, even in troublous times. And af-
ter fixty two weeks fhall the Meffiah be cut of.
is plainly an elliptical expreffi-
on, and may fignify either not for himself,
as in our tranſlation, or there shall be no one
to help him; or as the Biſhop interprets it,
they shall not be his people. Either interpre-
tation makes no great difference in the pro-
phecy.
As to theſe words, our author tells us,
that there are some modern Jews, that for
interpreters of the bible may, perhaps, be
ranked with the Jews, whofe authority the
biſhop ſo often cites, who understand this
place of Jefus, but inſtead of not for himſelf,
render it, becauſe it was not he; making him
who was to be cut off, not to be the true Mef-
fias, p. 184. 'Tis pity he hath not confirmed
this rendering, by a critical note on the He-
brew words, and fhew the connection of the
whole prophecy, fuppofing this to be the
real fenfe. However, even theſe modern
Jews apply this prophecy to the times of
Jefus, and are thus far againſt his explicati-
on
[ 158 ]
on of it; nor can I imagine any reaſon of
this quotation out of Woodroffe, except his
being pleaſed with every opportunity to vent
his ſpleen againſt our bleſſed Lord. For he
himſelf takes up with another rendering of
the words, and had no need to make this
citation, unless it were for the fake of the
reflection contained in it.
However, after this the people of the prince
that shall come, fhall deftroy the city and the
Sanctuary, the end thereof shall be with a
flood, they fhall be ſwept away as with an
inundation, and to the end of the war
נחרצת שממות,defolations are determined
may be rendered defolatio ad confumptio-
nem, decifa, fumma defolatio, an entire de-
ftruction, or greateſt defolation; or the whole
paffage may be thus turned, the end of the
war shall be an entire defolation. And he,
viz. the prince Meffias, fhall confirm the cove-
nant with many for one week, i. e. during the
laft prophetick week, he fhall receive into his
covenant all the Jews that would fubmit to him,
but yet in the half part of it, i. e. the latter half
part, he ſhall cauſe the facrifice and the oblation
I think the proper and ועל כנף שקוצים .to ceafe
true
[159]
true rendering is, propter expanfionem idololo-
rum, becauſe the victorious Romans fhould
erect their enfigns, on which were embla-
zoned the images of their Gods, in the city
and temple *, pup he shall make it defo-
late,
not as in our tranſlation,
even until the confummation, but, even
till they are confumed or † deftroyed; and
that determined ſhall be poured on the defo-
late, or till God fhall have accompliſhed
his determined vengeance upon that people.
In this prophecy I defire the reader to
take notice of the following particulars.
1. That when it was delivered, the com-
mand to rebuild Jerufalem was not gone
forth. This is plain in that the feventy
weeks are ſpoken of as weeks to come, and
that Daniel was to know when they were to
commence by the going out of the com-
mandment. 'Tis farther evident, from the
beginning of this chapter, where Daniel
*y often fignifies propter, because of, fee Pfal. x.x. 4. Ifa.
liii. 9. Lamen. v. 17, 18.
Ezek. xx. 7.
pw are idols, fee Jer. iv. 1.
† Thus fignifies, Ifa. xxviii. 22. and elſewhere
thus
[160]
·
thus ſpeaks, I Daniel understood by books the
the number of the years, whereof the word
of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet,
that he would accomplish feventy years in the
defolations of Jerufalem; in which Daniel
implies, that he apprehended by the word of
the Lord to Jeremy, that that period of time
was now near accompliſhed, and that there-
fore he fet his face to the Lord God by
prayer and fupplication. The word of the
Lord to Jeremy was not a commandment to
the people to return, and for the rebuilding
Jerufalem, but only a prophecy that Judea
and the neighbouring nations, ver. 9. fhould
ferve the king of Babylon feventy years,
and that afterwards God would punish him,
and make the land of the Chaldeans a perpe-
tual defolation; and that God would vifit the
Jews, and cauſe them to return to Jeruſa-
lem. Whereas the commandment, or word
of the angel to Daniel, was the command
for their actual return, and rebuilding their
city, which was not given till after this time;
for Daniel received this prophecy in the firſt
year of Darius the Mede, ver. 1. i. e. the firſt
year after the taking of Babylon, whereas the
decree
i
[161]
decree of Cyrus did not come forth till two
years after.
2. That ſeventy weeks was to be the de-
termined period of the Jewish people and
city.
3. The things to be done during this pe-
riod, were (1.) To reftrain tranfgreffion.
(2.) To make an end of fin. (3.) To make
expiation for iniquity. (4.) To bring in
everlaſting righteouſneſs, or a law of righte-
ouſneſs that ſhould laft for ever. (5.) Ta
feal up, or accompliſh, vifion and prophecy.
(6.) To anoint the moſt holy. Every reader
will eafily difcern the accompliſhment of
theſe things in our Lord Jefus Chrift.
4. That God renews the promife to
Daniel, that the street and the wall, or
the ditch in Jerufalem fhould be rebuilt,
even in troublous times, and of conſequence
no commiffion had been yet given for that
purpoſe.
X
5. That
[162]
5. That the computation of theſe weeks
was to begin from the commandment iffued
forth, to cauſe the people to return, and
the city to be rebuilt. This commandment
Dr. Prideaux, with great judgment, makes
to be the ample commiffion granted by Ar-
taxerxes in the 7th year of his reign, to
Ezra. His decree was, that all they of the
people of Ifrael, and of his priests and Levites
in my realm, which are minded of their own
free will to go up to Jerufalem, go with thee,
ver. 13. And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of
thy God, that is in thy hand, fet magiftrates
and judges, which may judge all the people that
are beyond the river; all fuch as know the
laws of thy God, and teach thou them that
know them not, ver. 25. This decree anfwers
moft exactly to the prophecy, from the going
forth of the commandment to cauſe you to re-
turn, and to rebuild Jerufalem. Artaxerxes
his decree is, All the people and prieſts in my
realm, that are minded to go up to Jerufa-
lem, let them go, viz. to inhabit there, and
to be formed into a civil government and
polity. This is all that the prophecy menti-
ons, and this is the firft full and general com-
miffion
[163]
miffion of this kind that ever was given
them. For the decree of Cyrus, mentioned
Ezra i. appears plainly reſtrained. Who is
there amongst you of all his people, his God be
with him, and let him go up to Jeruſalem,
which is in Judah, to build the houſe of the
* Lord God of Ifrael. The building of the
temple is the principal view of Cyrus's de-
cree. This alſo appears from the fame de-
cree mentioned and renewed by Darius,
which was not to allow the general return
of the Jews, but to build the house of God;
and therefore the feventy weeks cannot begin
their date from hence, but according to the
exprefs letter of the prophecy from the de-
cree of Artaxerxes to Ezra, which was
without any limitation or reftraint, and de-
figned to give full liberty to the Jews to fettle
their republick and form of government.
This farther appears from the letter of Rehum
and Shimfbai to Artaxerxes, or Smerdis the ma-
gian, fucceffor to Cambyfes, in which they com-
plain, not of the Jews building the temple,
but of their rebuilding the rebellious and bad
city, ſetting up the walls thereof, and joining
the foundations, Ezra iv. 12. and according-
X 2
ly,
[ 164 ]
ly, Artaxerxes upon fearching the records,
finding the report to be true, and no commif-
fion granted for that purpoſe by his predecef-
fors, immediately ordered a ftop to be put
to the whole work.
*
I am so unhappy as to difagree with the
reverend and learned Dr. Prideaux in this
circunftance; but as my opinion feems ra-
ther to agree with the truth of hiſtory, and
confirms his main argument about the date of
the beginning of the ſeventy weeks, I am the
lefs concerned. He contends for a figurative
explication of the words. I for a literal.
Daniel's words are, from the going forth of
the commandment not to restore Je-
rufalem, which the next words imply, viz.
to build Jerufalem, but, to cause all the
Jews to return. And of confequence this
commiffion could not be granted but by a
decree, which allowed a general return, and
full power to fettle a civil government amongſt
them; and this was fully granted by Arta-
xerxes, and by none before him and this
makes the ſenſe of the prophecy and decree
to be literally the fame. And 'tis fomewhat
remarkable, that as in the other decrees there
30
;
:
[165]
is no mention made of rebuilding the city,
fo in this there is not one word of rebuilding
the temple, which plainly fhews the very diffe-
rent events they relate to.
'Tis true that the decree of Cyrus must be
allowed, according to Ifaiah's prophecy of
him, chap. xliv. 28. to give them a liberty to
build houſes as well as the temple. But as
the decree of Cyrus and Darius is plainly re-
ftrained to the building the temple, every one
fees, that this is a vaftly different thing from
a liberty entirely to reftore and build up Je-
rufalem, and to live after their own laws and
government, which is the very purport of
Artaxerxes's decree to Ezra; for by giving
an entire liberty to all the people to return,
and granting Ezra a commiſſion to create
magiſtrates, and fettle their government, he
muft grant leave to repair Jerufalem as a city,
and to do every thing neceffary for its fafety
and defence. And that this never was done
before, is plain, becauſe that in the time of
Nehemiah, fifteen years after this commiffion
to Ezra, we read that the Jews, who were
returned to Judea, were in great reproach
and affliction, becauſe Jerufalem lay defolate,
Neh,
[166]
Neh. i. 3. compared with ii. 17. and there.
fore he asks a more explicit allowance from
the king, that he himself might be ſent to
Jerufalem that he might build it, ii. s.
This ſeems yet farther evident from the
account given of the people after their return
to Judea ; they difperfed themfelves into their
ſeveral cities to take poffeffion of their inhe-
ritances, where they built themſelves houſes and
applied themſelves to the culture of their land,
neither regarding Jerufalem, nor the temple
of the Lord, Hag. i. 4.
compare Ezra
ii. I. And in the time of Nehemiah, Je-
rufalem was fo far from being rebuilt, that
it was fçarce inhabited: for they were forced
to take by lot the tenth part of the whole
people to dwell in it. Neh. xi. 1. and of
confequence, tho' the decree for rebuilding
it was feveral years before, yet it was not
actually accompliſhed till under the govern-
ment of Nehemiah.
From theſe things, it plainly appears to
me, that Cyrus his decree did not relate to
the full reſtoration of Jerufalem, nor that
of Darius after him, but principally to the re-
ftoration of the temple; and that Artaxerxes's
command
[167]
command to Ezra was the very firſt to this
purpoſe; and of confequence the prophecy
of Daniel literally agrees to the decree
of Artaxerxes, and that prophecy muſt
refer to that command and to no other.
6. That a certain perfon called Meſſiah
the Prince fhould come. 'Tis one Meffiah
is mentioned and no more.
7. That from the going forth of the de-
cree for the reſtoration of Jerufalem unto this
Meffiah the prince, fhould be feven weeks and
threescore and two weeks. The learned Pri-
deaux hath affigned a very juft reaſon for this
diviſion of the weeks. The feven weeks or
forty nine years relate to that period of time
which was allotted for the rebuilding Jeru-
falem, and fettling the Jewiſh commonwealth,
which from the date of the commiflion gran-
ted to Ezra to the finifhing this work under
Nehemiah, was exactly forty nine years.
Threeſcore and two weeks after this, or four
hundred thirty four years, in all four hundred
eighty three years the Meffias was to come,
which
[168]
which exactly came to pass according to the
prediction.
8. That after the expiration of this term
or in the last week of the feventy, and at
the end of it, not as the Schematift affirms,
p. 196. at the end of the fixty two wecks,
the Meffiah ſhould be cut off, or put to death,
viz. in that city, which God here confirms
the rebuilding of, and foretells the future de-
ftruction of; for the feventy weeks were all
determined upon the Jewish people and
holy city.
See Prideaux Connect. Vol. I.
P. 294.
9. That, however, within the laft weck
of this period, he ſhould confirm the cove-
nant. He shall confirm the covenant with
many for one week. The whole laft feven
years ſhould be employed in making known
that covenant, of which he was to be the
author, and which at laft was to be folemnly
confirmed by his death.
10. That in the last half part of it, he
Should cause the facrifice and oblation to cease,
not
[169]
not only by declaring, that Jerufalem ſhould
be no longer the only place where God
would be worſhipped, but by introducing
that perfect law of everlasting righteousness,
which ſhould fupercede the neceflity of the
temple worſhip and ſervice.
11. That Jerufalem, after the cutting off
the Meffiah, and for this reafon fhould be de-
Stroyed with the fanctuary, by the prince of
the people that should come for that purpose,
who ſhould ſpread their idolatrous enfigns in
the city and temple, that the people fhould
be ſwept away as with a flood, and that
the war ſhould iffue in their entire defolation.
All which events came to pafs, under Titus
Vefpafian.
12. Laſtly, That at the expiration of the
feventy weeks, the Jews were to be no
longer the people of God, nor the city to be
accounted holy, and under an immediate di-
vine protection. Their tranfgreflions were
to be reſtrained by an exemplary puniſhment;
their facrifices were to be aboliſhed by a nobler
one, that was to make an end of fin, by
making
Y
}
[170]
making a fufficient and full attonement for
it. Their carnal fervice was to be aboliſhed
by the introduction of an everlaſting righte-
oufneſs, and all their prophecies to be ac-
compliſhed and ended by the anointing of
that moſt holy one to which theſe prophe- *
cies did particularly relate. And after this
deſertion of the people and fanctuary by God,
it is no wonder they foon came to an utter
deftruction.
Theſe are the feveral parts of this amazing
prophecy; and fince, as I hope abundantly to
demonftrate, it cannot refer to any events be-
fore Chrift, and the deftruction of Jerufalem by
the Romans, and do exactly agree to the cir-
cumſtances of theſe times, 'tis an invincible
proof of the being, perfections, and provi-
dence of God, and an unanswerable argu-
ment of the truth and divine authority of the
Chriſtian religion.
As I entirely fall in with Dr. Prideaux's
computation of thefe weeks, I refer my rea-
der to his connection, &c. for the hiftorical
account of them; and now fhall go on to
examine what the Literal Schematift hath
objected against it.
As
ز
[171]
As that author fets out with great affu-
rance, one would have imagined that he
ſhould advance ſomething very confiderable
againſt the chriſtian explication of this pro-
phecy. But with what aſtoniſhment am I
filled, to ſee him accounting for it only by
falſe hiftory, and bad criticiſm, and the moſt
extravagant and impoffible fuppofitions. I
appeal to the world, and to himſelf.
I'll agree with him, if he will, that this
prophecy is the ſheet anchor of our cauſe,
and hope, that this anchor is too firmly fixed
ever to be moved by fuch attempts as his.
The things he undertakes are, (1.) To
explain the words by another event to which
they greatly correfpond. And (2.) To fhew
that the event of Jefus doth not correſpond
to the prophecy of Daniel.
1. As to the explication of the prophecy.
Seventy weeks are, as he tranſlates it, ſhortned
or abbreviated. This criticiſm he confirms
by the following learned note. It is foren-
dered in the Greek, in the Vulgate, and in
Tertullian; and the original word, both in
Hebrew and Chaldee, fignifies to abbreviate,
¡Y 2
and
[ 172 ]
cut, and not to determine. See Job xvii. 1.
Prov. x. 27. in which note, to say nothing
worſe, there are three of the groſſeſt blunders.
1. In the Hebrew it fignifies to abbreviate,
and not to determine. This is the very thing
in queſtion, this word being one of the Twv
απαξ λεγομένων, but once ufed in the whole
Old Teſtament. 2. To prove this as to the
Hebrew he cites the two above-mentioned
places, which as they have no relation to the
ſenſe of Daniel's prophecy, make uſe of a
תקצרנה
Daniel's word is
נחתך
n.
. That in Proverbs
quite different word.
The word in Job is
pn. (3.) He affirms, that the word fign-
fies in Chaldee, to abbreviate, and not to deter-
mine. This is abfolutely falfe, for in Chal-
dee it fignifies to determine. See Targum on
Efth. iv. 5. where 'tis faid, that Hefter called
די על מימר חתך Daniel, who was named
-He was call .פומיה מתחתכן פתגמי מלכותא
ed, the word in the prophecy, be-
çaufe the affairs of the kingdom were deter-
mined by his fentence. Our learned critick
would have hit it by rendring it, were cut
aff by bis fentence. O! all ye criticks, can
ye help admiring the acuteness of the man!
What
[ 173 ]
What confutation of poor Daniel is here!
His victory over the chriftian caufe is worthy
the triumph with which he begins it.
But let us go on. To put an end to all
punishment for their fin; Thus he explains
to finish tranfgreffion, and make an end of
fin. For this impertinent fenfe he quotes
Grotius, who gives a quite different interpre-
tation of the words; an interpretation abfo-
lutely the reverſe of his. His words are, Ut
confummetur prevaricatio] or as the Vulgate,
ut finem fuum accipiat, pœna fcilicet: Where
pæna refers to prevaricatio, and Grotius's
meaning is that the puniſhment of their fin
might be full and compleat, as his next words
do demonftrate. Ad obfignandum peccatum,
i. e. pœnam peccatorum, i. e. that the puniſh-
ment of their fin might be compleat; for as
he adds from Cicero, Qua completa funt ob-
fignari folent.
Again, To establish righteousness. Here he
hath hit the matter again. He hath decently
dropt the word everlasting; becauſe he could
not tell what to make of it in his Scheme =
and then adds, this killing remark. The au
thor of the fecond Maccabees extols highly
the
[174]
1
the obfervation of the laws and religion of the
Jews, in the times here referred to. But what
are the times here referred to ? What the
whole feventy weeks? Were all the times
fromthe word of the Lord to Jeremy, to the
reign of Antiochus, fo very remarkable for
piety? The author of the ſecond book of
Maccabees fpeaks only of the good times
under Onias, and expreffly affigns it to his god-
linefs. Befides, how will theſe times account
for everlasting righteousness, or the righteouf
ness of ages? Onias, at moſt, was high-prieſt
but twenty four years, reckoning to the time
of his death, and was put out of the prieſt-
hood according to the account of the au-
thor of the ſecond book of Maccabees, at
leaſt four years before it, by Jason, under
whom, and Menelaus his brother, were intro-
duced into Jerufalem all the Grecians rites
and ceremonies. So that if theſe are the
times referred to, everlasting righteousness,
is a righteousness to last about twenty years,
which is excellent criticism, and extraordi-
nary fenfe.
Again, To fulfil prophecy; critical note.
That is Jeremiah's prophecy, and the prophecy
before
[175]
before us. Every one muft own the elegance
of this remark, who confiders, that Daniel's
ſeventy weeks were not to begin till the ac-
compliſhment of Jeremiah's prophecy; and
that there is nothing in the context to reſtrain
the vision and the prophet to Jeremiah and
Daniel, which must be made out by very
good reaſons, before ever it will be al-
lowed.
This is the first part of this prophecy, and
after this extraordinary account, he pro-
ceeds to the fecond, which he explains with
equal fagacity and exactneſs.
1. Know therefore and understand, says
the angel, that from the going forth of the
commandment to build Jerufalem, i. e. fays
our critick, from the word of God to Fere-
miah, promiſing a return from captivity.
Now how a promiſe that there ſhould be a re-
turn, made to Jeremiah above fixty years be-
fore, fhould be the fame with a commandment
actually to return, to be iffued out above fixty
years after, will require exquifite skill to de-
monftrate. The words of the prophecy do
abfolutely fix and determine this matter. For
after that he had ſaid, That from the going
forth
[176]
forth of the commandment to restore and
build Jerufalem unto Meffiah the prince, fhall
be ſeven weeks and threeſcore and two weeks ;
'tis added, that there might be no mistake,
when the computation was to begin, The
Street ſhall be built again, and the wall even
in troublous times. Daniel was praying for-
the reſtoration of the people and holy city.
God promiſes the city fhould be rebuilt, and
of conſequence that the people ſhould return;
and declares farther, that from the iffuing
forth of the decree for their full reſtoration
to the Meffiah, fhould be feven weeks and
threeſcore and two weeks. The chief defign
of the revelation to Daniel, was, to fix the
period of the Jewiſh religion and ſtate, and
therefore the angel begins with that, and
then adds, the wall fhall be rebuilt, that he
might know when the computation was to
commence, viz. from the decree iffued out
for the full reſtoration of the Jewish city
and people.
But he hath a curious criticiſm to prove
that the commandment muft refer to the word
of God to Jeremiah, and not to
for the reſtoration of the Jews.
a royal edict
They, viz.
who
[177]
}
who underſtand it of a royal edict, fuppofe
the word commandment doth in fcripture de-
note always a royal commandment, whereas
it always fignifies in the fcriptures a divine
prediction or promife. As for example it
doth juſt before at ver. 23. Was ever confi-
dence fo ignorant? What one in the world
ever imagined that the word commandment al-
ways fignifies a royal commandment? Or who
that underſtands Hebrew ever thought that
this is the conftant meaning of 7 Or
with what truth could he affert, that this word
always fignifies in fcripture a divine pre-
diction or promiſe? hath as great a va-
riety of ufe in Hebrew, as res in Latin; and
amongſt the reſt often fignifies a royal edict.
See 2 Chron. XXX. S. 77 17" They e-
ſtabliſhed a decree, To make proclamation
throughout Ifrael. And to mention no more,
let him confult the royal 7 of Ahasuerus
Efth. i. 19. and when ever he pretends to
criticiſe upon the meaning of Hebrew
דבר הזה words, let him remember
As to the meaning of this word at ver.
23. it cannot poffibly fignify a divine pre-
diction or promife; but the command of
God to the angel, to make known theſe
Z
N..
future
[178]
future events to Daniel; as appears from
the paffage it ſelf. At the beginning of thy
Jupplications the commandment came forth.
What the divine promife or prediction To
Daniel? What before he had it? Or to the
angel? The promiſe or prediction of world-
ly things to angels is unknown to fcripture.
The 7 here given to the angel, was no-
thing more or less than God's command-
ment to him, to reveal the affairs of the
ſeventy weeks to Daniel; and therefore he
adds, I am come to fhew thee, viz. in
obedience to the command I have received
for this purpoſe.
Befides, if the commandment in the text
refers to the prediction of Jeremiah, it
makes this firſt part of the prophecy a ſenſe-
lefs and impertinent thing. The angel
comes by commandment from God to fhew
Daniel fomething that was to come, and
orders him ſeriouſly to attend to and con-
fider the matter. What matter? Why that
the captivity ſhould laft feventy years, fays
our author. Whereas Daniel knew that as
well as the angel, and needed not his infor-
mation;
[179]
mation; and understood too that thofe feventy
years were near upon expiring.
So that he need not be fo vaftly aſtoniſhed,
that authors ſhould underſtand the command-
ment of a decree, and that they ſhould look
for the decree in the reigns he mentions.
'Tis more aftoniſhing to me, that he ſhould
pretend to criticife upon words he doth not
underſtand; make a prophecy and the ac-
compliſhment of it the fame, and introduce.
God as fending an angel to reveal to Daniel,
what he well underſtood before. For ac-
cording to him the angel fpeaks thus,
"The word or divine prediction is come
tv
re
to me, and I am come to fhew thee what
"thou didst very well know before; and
" what thou needcft not any information of
" from me. This impertinence will appear
yet the greater, if what our author, to make
his fcheme compleat, afferts p. 181. fhould,
prove true, viz. From that day, (the going
forth of the prophecy to Jeremiah) to the
beginning of the reign of my anointed or Mef-
fiah Cyrus, there are seven weeks or forty
nine years. His memory is as found as his
judgment. In one place 'tis, that ſeventy
Z 2
years
[180]
years after the commandment to Jeremiah,
Jerufalem fhould be built. Three pages after,
from that commandment shall be forty nine
jears to Cyrus. And was not Daniel infi-
nitely obliged to the angel that thus re-
vealed to him a thing that had come to pafs
twenty one years before? For the date of
Cyrus his reign, to which our author refers,
is from the death of Aftyages king of Media,
who was fucceeded by Cyaxares or Darius
his fon, with whom Cyrus was joined in the
government. From the delivery of Jeremiah's
prophecy to this period, are forty nine, as
the Schematist affirms, to make up this firſt
feven weeks. And from this commence-
ment of Cyrus his reign to Daniel's receiving
the vifion of the feventy weeks, is just twenty
one years.
A
But if we take the commandment to
be the decree that
that was to be iſſued
forth for the full restoration of the Jewiſh
commonwealth, the meffage
meſſage to
to Daniel
will appear worthy of an angel to re-
veal, notwithstanding the ridicule the Sche-
matift would fain fix on it. "As thou
હૃદ
tr
"knoweft the feventy years of the captivity
19
te
‹‹ are
[ 181 ]
are almoſt expired, ſo underſtand thou,
" that from the edict for the full reſtora-
«tion of thy people unto the Meſſiah fhall
"be ſeven weeks and threeſcore and two
"weeks. That in the week enfuing this
"L
Meffiah fhall be cut off; and that for this
"crime God fhall execute the moſt exempla-
ry vengeance on the Jews, and make their
"city and nation defolate." The Meffiah
was a bleffing promiſed to the fathers; the
time for his coming is here determined; and
tho' Daniel did not underſtand, or live to the
period when the edict was to come forth;
yet he knew it was not a long way of, had
here a freſh proof of the divine faithfulneſs
and mercy, and for the benefit of fuccceding
ages fixed a time, beyond which the coming
of the Meſſiah could not poffibly be deferred.
As to the chronological difficulties he men-
tions, I refer my reader to Dr. Prideaux
part 1. b. 4. where he will find them abun-
dantly anſwered.
2. Unto Meffiah the prince ſhall be ſeven
weeks and threescore and two weeks. From
that day (the going forth of the command-
ment to Jeremiah) to the beginning of the
reign of my anointed or Meffiah Cyrus, there
are
[182]
}
are feven weeks or forty nine years. From
the fame going forth of the commandment
by Jeremiah to the rife of the other Meffiah,
Judas Maccabæus, there shall be threefcore
and two weeks. For a double Meffiah is
promised you. Who would not ſuſpect fuch
a ſcheme as this, which is thus built upon
the most unreaſonable and imaginary addi-
tions to the text. Daniel evidently ſpeaks but
of one Meffiah. The Schematist here intro-
duces two, contrary to the literal meaning;
and becauſe his Scheme would have no ap-
pearance of truth without it, is foon after
forced to add a third. This is cabala, myfti-
cifm, allegory, and riddle, with a vengeance;
and indeed needs nothing but it felf to con-
fute it. But as he thinks he hath perfectly
hit of the myſtery better than Mr. Mede, I
fhall examine what he hath alleged in fup-
port of his opinion.
He fays, p. 179. If you make a stop at Seven
weeks and refer the fixty two weeks to the
matter which follow in the text, the Meffiah
prince can be Cyrus only; and the text feems
properly explained thus, from the going forth
of the commandment to Jeremiah to the be-
ginning of the reign of Cyrus, there are feven
weeks.
1
[183]
weeks, or forty nine years. p. 181. To
which I answer, that there ought to be no
ftop at the ſeven weeks, and that if there
was, Cyrus can have nothing to do in the
prophecy before us; for Cyrus his reign is
begun by fome from his coming out of
Perfia for the affiftance of Cyaxares; by o-
thers from the taking of Babylon; and by
others from the death of Darius or Cyaxares.
The firſt of theſe periods cannot be the be-
ginning of Cyrus's reign, which the forty
nine years are fuppofed to refer to. For
Daniel had this vifion in the first year of
Darius, that is, after the taking of Babylon,
and the erection of the Perfian empire,
which was at least twenty one years after
this commencement of the reign of Cyrus.
If our author means this period, as he evi-
dently doth, then he introduces the angel
thus fpeaking. « O Daniel I am come
"forth to give thee skill and underſtanding
"in a matter thou knoweft well, and I come
"to fhew thee a thing that happened twen-
ty one years ago; therefore underſtand
"the matter thou underſtandeft already, and
confider the vifion I am now going to re-
<<
late
[184]
"late of an event thou needeft not to be in-
"formed of. Nor can the two laft periods
of the beginning of Cyrus's reign agree to
the ſeven weeks; becauſe from the delivering
the command to Jeremiah, to the conqueft
of Babylon was fixty eight years, and to the
death of Darius feventy.
But that he may make Cyrus a Meffiah
in this prophecy, he tells us, that unless
Some Meffiah or Chrift was to come after the
first mentioned feven weeks, as well as after
the threescore and two weeks, it would not
have been faid, To the Meffiah the prince
ſhall be ſeven weeks and threefcore and two
weeks: It would have been ſaid.---Shall be
fixty nine weeks. This is a moſt notable ob-
ſervation; as tho' there could be no reaſon
to ſay ſeven weeks, and threeſcore and two
weeks, but fomething that abfolutely deſtroys
the reafon given. The beginning of Cyrus
his reign doth not, from what ever period
we date it, by any means accord to this ac-
count of the forty nine years, and there-
fore cannot be the reaſon of the diviſion of
theſe weeks. I will allow this writer, that
from this peculiarity of expreffion, each par-
tition of weeks ought to have its fingular
events;
[185]
events; tho' not its particular Meffiah, of
which there is not the leaſt ſhadow of foun-
dation in the text. And if I can affign a
probable reaſon why it is faid feven weeks
and fixty two, this peculiarity of expreffion
will be accounted for. Now methinks the
very text itſelf furniſhes us with the reaſon
we are in queft of. For as the prophecy
afferts, that from the going forth of the com-
mandment to the Meffiah fhall be in all
fixty nine weeks, whereby the time for this
event is determined; fo if the fame text af
fures us, that the wall shall be rebuilt, and
the common-wealth fettled, this will account
for the divifion of thofe fixty nine weeks
into feven weeks and fixty two weeks, if
the wall was rebuilt, and the republick fet-
tled at the end of the ſeven weeks, or forty
nine years.
See this proved by Dr Prideaux
in his Connect. p. 1. b. s. p. 259. compar'd
with p. 411.
When he adds, They who understand Mef
fiah the prince to fignify the Saviour Jeſus
Chriſt, can by no means extricate themſelves
from the difficulty of accounting, how the
Meffiah fhould come after feventy weeks. I
answer,
A a
[186]
answer, that if there are any fuch, they are
evidently miſtaken. For feventy weeks were
determined on the people and the holy city,
i. e. they were to be continued God's people
and city for that space of time, and no
longer; and the Meftah was to come at the
end of fixty nine weeks, and after the end
of thefe weeks, viz. at the end of the fe-
ventieth was to be cut off; for as feventy
weeks were to determine the Jewish ftate,
fo after the cutting off the Meffiah, God
was to abandon the Jewish people to an
entire deftruction; and of confequence the
death of the Meſſiah and God's defertion
of the Jewith nation, were exactly to hap-
pen both together, and in this refpect the
event proves the prediction to be true.
But there is yet one more remark that
I cannot lightly pafs over. viz. That we
ought to take the beginning, for the compu-
ting each partition, from the fame epoch,
i. e. from the going forth of the command.
ment, or prophecy, to Jeremiah; and that
feven weeks are first to be computed, and
then that from the fame beginning, you muſt
proceed till you come to fixty two weeks. I
would here obſerve, (1.) That the prophecy
exprefsly
[187]
exprefsly fays, there fhould be in all feventy
weeks; and that there might be no mistake
in this matter branches them out into feren
weeks, fixty two weeks, and one week; fo
that 'tis feventy fucceffive weeks, and not
fixty two, that are here intended. (2.) If
feventy weeks are here meant, it follows
that the epoch for the computing each par-
tition cannot be the fame; for to begin to
number fixty two weeks from a dated year,
and ſeven weeks and one week of years.
from the fame year, will no more make up
feventy weeks of years, than fixty two gui-
neas, ſeven guineas and one guinea of the
fixty two guineas will make up the fum
of ſeventy guineas. Our author would fcarce
love to be paid feventy guincas by fuch a
method of computing them.
And yet this is the very method he takes
in calculating the weeks of Daniel. Thus he
explains himſelf p. 188. from the fourth of
Jehoiachim there are ſeven weeks, or
forty nine years.
of Jehoiachim to
And from the fourth year
Judas Maccabæus—
there are fixty three weeks or four hundred
and forty and one years, which (good rea-
der obferve him) added together make
A a 2
Seventy
[188]
Jeventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety
years. i. e. tho' all the events here fpoken
of were to be tranfacted in four hundred
forty one years; yet if you add
add to
this number the firft forty nine years of the
felf fame number four hundred forty one,
it will make four hundred and ninety. Was
there ever fuch an adept in calculations, or
did ever any man fo cunningly multiply a
number into more than it felf? But to paſs
over this new rule of addition, this me-
thod of computing will quite unravel
our author's fcheme, which he thinks he hath
fo nicely hit. For the feven weeks or forty
nine years can never agree to the com-
mencement of Cyrus's reign, from whatever
period it begins; nor will he with all his
skill in chronology ever be able to prove,
that from Jeremiah's prophecy to Judas
Maccabaus were exactly fixty two weeks or
four hundred thirty and four years. Befides
the prophecy plainly declares, that the Mef
fiah, whoever be meant by him, was to
come before Meffiah was to be cut off. From
the going forth of the commandment to
Meffias the prince shall be fixty nine weeks.
But
[189].
But after theſe fixty nine weeks Meffias
was to be cut off. And therefore this adept
in chronology muft either give up Meſſiah
Judas Maccabeus in ver. 25. who did not
appear till after Onias's death; or elfe his
Meffiah Onias in ver. 26. who was cut off
before the government of Judas Maccabæus.
I might also mention, that if this writer will
be confiftent with himſelf, he ought to date
the epoch of the one week, in ver. 27.
from the fame time as he doth the feven
and fixty two weeks, in ver. 25. But this
was not to his purpoſe, and would have
deftroyed his nice explication of this pro-
phecy, and therefore he hath wifely avoided
it.
I think I have by this time demonftrated,
from the nature of the prophecy, and from
our author himſelf, that all his calculations
are precarious and falfe. And indeed with
what appearance of probability or truth, can
he introduce two Meffiahs, as the literal
meaning of a text that, plainly ſpeaks of but
one Meffiah, or make fixty two weeks to be
the literal meaning of feventy weeks, or
feven, fixty two, and one week. I am
perfuaded that if Chriftians had made ſuch
grofs
[190]
grofs blunders in their calculations, or been
put to this ſhift in interpreting this prophecy
of Daniel, he would have beftowed plenty
of ridicule upon them. He might have done
it with juſtice and could never have been an-
fwered. And how vain is his boaſt, with which
he fums up his wretched account, viz. There
is certainly fome mystery in Daniel's moſt un-
ufual phrafe; and my explication of it, as
being conformable both to the words them-
felves, and to the context, and to another place,
Seems perfectly to hit of that mystery; to all
which I fhall make no other return, but in
thoſe words of Cicero de Divinat. l. 2. §. 57.
Nefcio quomodo, ifti philofophi fuperftitiofi &
pene fanatici, quidvis malle videntur, quam
fe non ineptos.
I hope the fheet-anchor remains as yet fixed
and unmoved. But perhaps the next heave
may make her give way.
And after threefcore and two weeks, or
in the last week, the only remaining week
of the feventy, fhall Meffiah be cut off, but
not for himſelf. i. e. After fixty two weeks
or four hundred and thirty four years the
Meffiah or prieft Meffiah, i. c. Onias the
high
[191]
high priest, ſhall be cut off, and he shall have
none to help him.
It would prejudice any one at firft view
against this interpretation, to fee how this
writer is forced to patch up and enlarge the
text, to make the words capable of any mean-
ing whatſoever. The text evidently ſpeaks
of one Meffias that was to come feven weeks
and fixty two weeks after the going forth of
the commandment, and that after the three-
fcore and two weeks he fhould be cut off.
Would any mortal man imagine, that two
Meffiabs were here intended, unleſs purely
for the fake of a ſcheme? Much less that the
Meffiah in the twenty fixth verfe, who was not
to be cut off till after the fixty two weeks,
was yet to come before Meffiah in ver. 25.
who was to come at the end of theſe fixty
two weeks; and much lefs yet, that Onias
was the Meffias to be cut off, whofe death
happened before the coming of Judas
Maccabeus, who ought therefore, to fet this
prophecy ftrait, to have lived before him?
Theſe are inconfiftences too grofs to pafs
upon his authority, and ſpoil an interpreta-
tion that hath no other foundation to fup-
port it.
Befides
[192]
Befides, how comes in the addition of the
word priest? Daniel fays prince Meffiah,
and gives no intimation of any other mean-
ing. And how comes it to pass, that the
angel fhould fay, according to the ſpeech
the Schematift hath made for him, a double
Meffiah is promiſed you? whereas he ought
to have ſaid, a treble Meffiah is promiſed
you, if our author's account of the prophecy
be true. I fuppofe 'tis to this paffage he par-
ticularly refers, when he tells us in his in-
troduction: The reader will, as I conceive,
find that the author, in the following papers,
has advanced fuch a scheme of things, as
will account for all matters in the prefent
difpute. This is modeftly faid, and fhews
the very humble opinion and conceit he
hath of himſelf, and I verily believe that e-
very impartial reader will form a juft o-
pinion of his integrity, capacity, and mo-
defty, without any farther defcription of his
virtues.
But what renders this whole account of
the Schematiſt precarious is, that the ſtory
of Onias's death, in the manner related in
the ſecond of Maccabees, wants it ſelf a
good
[ 193 ]
good foundation to fupport it. This book
is nothing but an inaccurate abridgment
of Jafon's hiftory; begins with two ſpurious
epiftles, and is therefore of too ſuſpected a
credit ever to be made the foundation of
interpreting an antient prophecy. Jofephus
his account of the time and manner of
Onias's death, is quite different. He tells
us Antiq. l. 12. c. 5. that Onias died a-
bout the time that Antiochus fucceded his
brother Seleuchus, and mentions nothing of
any violent death.
And when he fpeaks of Onias again
in his book of the Maccabee's, he doth
indeed mention his being put out of the
priesthood by the treachery of Jason,
but ſpeaks not one word of his violent
death, which Jofephus would ſcarce have
omitted, had it been true; Onias having
been exampláry for his piety and virtue. See
Fof. de Maccab. p. 502.
Nothing is more evident than that there
is a great deal of confufion in the account
given by the author of the fecond book of
Maccabees. He feems to have confounded
the two ſtories, of the difference between
Hircanus and his brethren the grandfons of
B b
Toby
[194]
Com-
Toby under Seleuchus, and that of the high-
prieſts under Antiochus Epiphanes, his bro-
ther and fucceffour in the Syrian empire.
For he makes Menelaus, who was the
younger brother of Onias, to be brother to
Simon the Benjamite, who was of the fa-
mily of Tobias; which account is not only
contrary to that of Jofephus, but very im-
probable in it felf, becauſe if he had not
been of the houſe of Aaron, he could not
have obtained the high-priesthood.
pare, Jof. Antiq. l. 12. c. 4, s. with 2 Mac.
iii. iv. So that this writer, who declares him-
felf to be only an abridger of another's
work, that to ftand upon every point, to go
over things at large, and to be curious in
particulars, belongs to the first author of the
ftory; but that to use brevity, and avoid
much labouring of the work is to be granted
to him that will make an abridgment, 2 Mac. ii.
30, 31. and that actually prefixes to an un-
accurate abridgment two evidently fpurious
accounts; I fay, fuch a writer's authority is
not to be compared to that of Jofephus,
whofe relations in the main are authentick
and genuine.
This
[ 195 ]
This fingle remark is enough to spoil the
credit of our author's interpretation. What he
adds about the opinion of the Jews, p. 184.
is nothing to the purpofe; the queſtion
being, not what the Jews thought, but what
the prophecy of Daniel foretold. If the
prophecy of Daniel ſpoke of a fuffering Mef-
fiah, that was to be cut off, they ought to
have meddled farther with him than to bring
him to the cross, being vaftly concerned for
what happened afterwards; if the deftructi-
on of their city and temple, and the difper-
fion of that nation to this very day, are
things worthy their concern and regard.
We now come to the laft part of the
prophecy, and our author's interpretation of
it, which is exactly of a peice with the for-
mer.
1. And the prince of the people that ſhall
come. i. e. fays he, an army of Greeks un-
der Antiochus. That Antiochus cannot be
meant is plain, becauſe he did not perform
thoſe things which 'tis prophefied the prince
here ſpoken of fhould do, as will appear
preſently. Befides, as the prince of the peo-
Bb 2
ple,
[ 196 ]
ple, who was to deftroy the city and the fan-
&tuary, was to come after the prince Mef-
fias, at the twenty fifth verfe, who was to
come at the end of the fixty two weeks,
and after the cutting off the Meffias, which
was to be at the end of the feventy weeks;
how can Antiochus be meant, or how can
the prophecy agree with it felf upon this
fuppofition, fince our author exprefsly fays,
that in the midst of the last week, or in
the fourth year of the last week, i. c. three
years before the expiration of the feventy,
he (Antiochus) fhall cauſe their facrifices
to cease, and the abomination to over-
fpread; fince nothing is more certain than
that Antiochus came above three years be-
fore Judas Maccabæus, and caused the
Sacrifice to cease, before the end of the ſe-
venty weeks. No, the nonfenfe and con-
tradiction is not in Daniel, but in his
wretched interpretation of Daniel's pro-
phecy.
2. Shall deftroy the city and the fanctuary.
i. c. fhall lay waft the city and temple. If
by laying waft, he means the utter de-
ftruction of the city and temple, he is right;
for
[ 197 ]
שחת
for this is the conftant meaning of the ori-
ginal word nne when applied to cities,
fortreffes, and places. Thus Ezekiel explains
the word by making an end of. Ezek. xx. 17.
and this is the invariable ufe and meaning
of it, when applied as before mentioned.
And this undoubtedly is the proper mean-
ing of Daniel. But how will this author
make the prophecy fo underſtood, to anſwer,
in his ſcheme, the event? Antiochus did
not make an entire end of either the city
or temple; and therefore he cannot be the
perfon intended in this prophecy.
3. And to the end of the war defolations
are determined. Here our author hath no
meaning to affix to the words, and his criti-
cifm fails him. And therefore I would obferve,
that the prophet here fpeaks of a war that
was to be carried on between the Jews and
the people of the prince, and that at the
conclufion of it there fhould be an entire
defolation. Now neither of theſe circum-
ftances agree to Antiochus. Jofephus fays,
Antiq. l. 12. c. s. that he entered the city
quant without force. But fuppofing Jo-
Sephus
[198]
Sephus in this particular to be miſtaken, as I
apprehend he is, yet 'tis evident that the
fiege was of a fhort continuance, and Jeru-
falem foon reduced; fo that this cannot an-
fwer to the deſcription of the text, at the
end of the war, which fuppofes fome con-
tinuance of it, and not the bare fiege of
a place, which was to be over in a few
days or weeks. Befides, the defolation of
Jerufalem was not immediately after the end
of the war, fuppofing this fiege fhould de-
ferve the name of a war. For Antiochus
only plundred the city and temple, and
it was not till two years after that Antio-
chus fent Apollonius to execute his venge-
ance upon that unhappy place. Nor did
Apollonius even then entirely deftroy the city
or temple, which he muſt have done, had An-
tiochus his mafter been the perfon intended
by Daniel. Indeed fo far was this from be-
ing an entire deſolation of the city and fan-
ctuary, that in a few years after Antiochus,
the city recovered its former ftate, and the
temple was reſtored to its original ſervice
and glory.
-
4. And
[ 199 ]
4. And he shall confirm the covenant with
many for one week, i. e. fays our author,
in the last week Antiochus Epiphanes ſhall
allow the Jews to keep the covenant made
with their fathers, or to perform their wor-
Ship. But Antiochus cannot be meant both
in this verſe and in the foregoing; becauſe
in this verſe 'tis expreffly declared he ſhould
come in one week, i. e. in the laſt week, and
in the former not in the laft of the fixty two,
but after they ſhould be fully expired. And
indeed this obfervation feems to me plainly
to denote that two very different perfons are
intended. In the former verfe, the prince
of the people is ſpoken of as diſtinct from
prince Meffias who was to be cut off, which
prince of the people was to come after the
death of prince Meffias, and therefore after
the expiration of the feventy years. But in
the laſt verſe the perfon ſpoken of was to
come in one week, i. e the laft of the fe-
venty; and therefore as the cutting off the
Meffias, and the confirming of the covenant,
were both to happen in this laft week, I ap-
prehend that the prophet returns to the Mef-
;
fiah,
[ 200 ]
fiah, to intimate that * HE would raiſe up
the prince of the people to execute his ven-
geance againſt the Jews, by the entire de-
ftruction of their city, temple, and government,
for having cut him off; and that the Mef-
fiah to be cut off was the fame perſon with
him who was to confirm the covenant; and
indeed that his being cut off, was the real
confirmation of the covenant he was to in-
troduce. And I cannot help obferving how
gloriously this falls in with the New Tefta-
ment's account of Chrift. He confirmed his
covenant with wonders and miracles, but
the moſt folemn ratification was by his blood.
Heb. ix. 15.
But not to infift on this, let it be granted,
contrary to the exprefs letter of the text,
and determined periods of time, that Antio-
chus is meant; I call on the Schematift to
produce his authors, that prove that Antio-
chus did confirm, or by any new grant al-
low the Jews to keep the covenant made
* Nothing is more ufual in the facred writers, than to af-
cribe those things to God which were performed by others,
becauſe done by his appointment and order. See Ifai. xxix.
2, 3, 4. and many other places.
with
[ 201 ]
with their fathers, or to perform their wor-
ſhip. He ſeems to cite for this purpoſe
1 Mac. xii. 17. 2 Mac. vii. 1. Tho' with-
out the leaft fhadow of advantage to his
cauſe. The firft place fpeaks of thoſe who
maintained the law in oppofition to the or-
ders of Antiochus to the contrary; and the
fecond, of the death of the feven brethren on
the fame account. What can be the end
of ſuch quotations as theſe? What muſt the
world think of the veracity or care of an
author, that can thus abuſe the credulity of
fome of his readers, and the time and pati-
ence of others of them? The truth is this
affertion is contrary to the faith of all hifto-
ries. For neither Jofephus, nor the authors
of the two Maccabees ever fpeak of this
grant of Antiochus to the Jews, but do un-
animoufly affirm, that immediately on his
acceffion to the Syrian throne, he allowed
and ordered the obfervance of the Gracian
cuſtoms, and the erection of a ſchool for this
purpoſe at Jerufalem; and that afterwards,
fo far was he from allowing the Jews to
keep the covenant of their fathers, that he
endeavoured to aboliſh every remains of that
covenant
C c
[202]
covenant by the most infamous methods of
perfecution and cruelty. 'Tis true that An-
tiochus Eupater his fon did confirm the co-
venant with the Jews, that they ſhould live
after their laws as they had done before,
1 Mac. vi. 59. but this is nothing to our
author's purpoſe.
5. In the midst of the week, i. c. in the
latter part and at the end of it, he shall
cauſe the facrifice and oblation to ceaſe. This
our author explains of Antiochus. But as
he cannot be meant in the foregoing fen-
tence, ſo neither can he in this; for the
fame perfons are ſpoken of in both. Befides,
Daniel ſpeaks of an entire ceffation of the
facrifice and oblation, to be cauſed by an
entire deftruction of the city and fanctuary,
which cannot agree to that under Antiochus,
which lafted but for a few years, after which
things reverted to their original order and
courſe. But this obfervation is true if ap-
plied to Jefus Chrift, who did cauſe the fa-
crifice and oblation to ceaſe, by taking a-
way all neceflity for the continuance of it,
thro' the offering up himſelf once for all,
by
[203]
by declaring that the Jews were left defolate, or
rejected by God from being his peculiar peo-
ple, and by fo ordering affairs, that all things
from the Meſſiah's death conſpired to their
ruin, which was at laft effectually accom-
pliſhed by the Roman army under Titus.
And this is agreeable to the antient method
of expreffing prophecies in the Old Tefta-
ment, as every one that hath read them care-
fully must have obferved.
6. For the overspreading of abomination
he ſhall make it defolate, even until the end.
Our author explains this, to the end of that
week, and all the weeks. But this is an
addition to the text. The original words
y denote, ufque ad excidium, donec abfu-
mantur, even to their entire deftruction.
7. Laſtly, and that determined ſhall be pour-
ed on the defolate. i. c. After which the
defolator ſhall have vengeance paid him in his
turn, and the Jews fhall again recover their
religious and civil liberty. And this he ſays
was brought about by Judas Maccabaus.
To all which I anfwer, that this interpreta-
Cc 2
tion
[204]
tion is contrary to the literal fenfe of the
foregoing words, which ſpeak of an entire
deftruction; and indeed had it not been for
an obſervation of the Bishop, he would have
been mightily at a loſs how to have explain-
ed this paffage of Daniel. The bishop
obferves, that Do fignifies defolator,
and ſo it doth. But the word in this
paffage is not awa but Dow, the com-
mon if not conftant fenfe of which is de-
folate. There are but two places where it
poffibly can fignify, actively, or making de-
folate. Dan. viii. 13. and xii. 11. Every
where elſe 'tis ufed in a paffive fenfe. And
I think it ought to be fo uſed there, where
the fin and the abomination are faid to be
defolate, becauſe of the defolating effects
they produced. However the context plain-
ly fixes the meaning in the paffage under
confideration. For what can the word de-
termined here refer to, but the determina-
tion fpoken of, ver. 24. and 26. viz. the
defolations appointed for the holy city and
fanctuary. There is not a fingle word in
the whole prophecy that speaks of venge-
ance defigned against the prince of the peo-
ple, much less of a reftoration of the Jews
:
to
[205]
to their civil and religious liberties; and
therefore the word v muft refer, accor-
ding to its conftant meaning, to the defo-
late, on whom God's determined vengeance
was to be executed.
And thus have I confidered all the criti-
cal remarks of this author upon the pro-
phecy of Daniel's feventy weeks, and per-
fuade my felf, that my reader will by this
time be convinced, how very unfit he is
to deal in prophecy; and that the whole
application of it, to Jeremiah, Cyrus, Onias,
Judas Maccabæus, and Antiochus Epiphanes,
is grounded on palpable miſtakes of the
whole intent thereof (which relates wholly
to quite different matters) and on mifera-
bly wrefting and perverting chronology and
times. So that R. Abarbanel's words were
never fo truly applied, as when applied to
our author. Ifte homo computationes facit,
non quales cum rerum veritate conveniunt,
fed quales expetit.
But he hath yet fome farther confirmation
of his fenfe of the prophecy, and refers his
reader to the three other vifions of Daniel.
Two of theſe we have already confidered,
"
and
[ 206 ]
of
and ſhewn that they refer to the kingdom of
the Meſſiah, and therefore they do confirm
the ſenſe I have given of the prophecy under
queftion. As to the third viſion, ch. viii. it
appears from the whole of it, that it is on-
ly a more particular explication of part
the vifion, ch. vii. relating to the defolation
cauſed by Antiochus Epiphanes; different in
all its circumſtances from the viſion of the
feventy weeks, as will appear to any one
that compares them. The vifion of the eight
chapter ſpeaks of the diviſion of Alexander's
kingdom, of the tyranny of Antiochus, fixes
a fet time for it, and then declares that the
fanctuary fhould be cleanfed, and that An-
tiochus himſelf fhould be broken without
hand. But in this other vifion we have been
confidering there is a different period of time
fixed, viz. ſeventy wecks or four hundredand
ninty years, the coming of the Meſſiah and
his being cut off are declared, the abſolute
deftruction of the city and fanctuary expre-
fsly foretold, even their being made entire-
ly defolate, without the leaft intimation of
their recovery and reſtoration. So that every
circumftance determines the two vifions to
relate to quite different events, and the
things.
[207]
things contained in it to be accompliſhed
by very defferent perfons.
Hitherto I think the fheet-anchor is fafe;
and if the prophet intends ſeventy real weeks
and not feventy cut weeks, or fixty three,
if the going forth of the word doth not fig-
nify Jeremiah's prophecy, but the iſſuing a
royal decree, if the finiſhing tranfgreffion &c.
doth not and cannot relate to the continu-
ance of the Jewiſh ſtate, but the end of it, and
the times after it, if the city and fanctuary
were to be abfolutely deftroyed, and that de-
ftruction was to fucceed the death of Mef-
fias, or not to happen 'till after the feventy
years were expired, and was not to be fol-
lowed with vengeance on the defolator, or a
reſtoration of the Jewiſh affairs, if the Ro-
man army entered Jerufalem with their mi-
litary enfigns and deftroyed the city and
fanctuary, if Jeſus did confirm the covenant
in the laſt week of the feventy, and cauſe
the ſacrifice of oblation to ceaſe, if theſe
things be fo, they are entirely conformable
to the event of Jefus, and he may therefore
be found here, without doing any violence to
the text in any part of it; nor indeed can
the prophecy be explained with any con-
fiftency
[208]
fiftency with it ſelf, or truth of hiſtory, but
by applying it to Jefus, and the circum-
ſtances and confequences of his appearance.
But he objects, that the city and fanctua
ry were not destroyed by any army under
Jefus, in whofe time there was no war a-
gainst Jerufalem. Wherefore the deftruction
of the city and fanctuary by the people of the
prince that should come, cannot relate to
Jeſus's time, p. 190. What if all this be
true, 'tis nothing at all to the purpoſe. Da-
niel never ſaid there fhould be a war in Jeſus's
time, and that, Chrift fhould come with an
army to deſtroy Jerufalem; and he is ſo far
from fixing the defolations of the city and
fanctuary to the times of Jefus, or the Mef-
fas, that, on the contrary he declares, that
this fhould happen after his death, and that
the determined vengeance ſhould be taken,
not by the Meffias in perfon, but by the
people of a certain prince, that ſhould come
for that end; and if the deftruction of the
city and fanctuary ſpoken of had happened
in Jeſus's time, or before his death, the pro-
phecy of Daniel would not have accorded
to the event. And therefore the reaſon he
affigns,
[209]
affigns, why this deftruction could not re-
late to that made by the Romans, proves
it doth relate to it and no other. For as
the bringing in everlasting righteouſneſs,
Sealing up, or accomplishing prophecies, and
anointing the most holy, were to conclude
the ſcene of the feventy weeks, 'tis evident
that the deftruction of the city and fanctuary
could not be comprehended within that
period, but were to happen after the expi-
ration of it; and that the death of the
prince Meffiah, by which the prophecies
were fealed up or accompliſhed, &c. was
to be exactly at the end of it. And
as no particular time was fixed by Daniel's
prophecy for the deftruction of the city and
fanctuary, but only that it fhould be the
puniſhment inflicted on the Jews for their
cutting off the Meffiah, and happen foon
after; that vengeance not being executed till
thirty years or more after the death of Chrift,
is no objection against the proper accom-
pliſhment of Daniel's prophecy in our blef-
fed Lord, who did fend the prince of the
people to compleat their puniſhment by a
perpetual defolation.
D d
He
[ 210 ]
He objects farther, that Jefus cannot be
faid to have confirmed the covenant for one
week, who confirmed it by his doctrine and
practice all his life. p. 191. 'Tis allowed
then that Jefus did confirm the covenant,
and 'tis as certain that he confirmed it but
for one week. For from the coming of the
word of God to John Baptift, the forerun-
ner of the Meffias, until whofe time the
law and the prophets were, and after which
the kingdom of God was preached, to the
death of the Meffias, and the end of his
miniftration, was exactly one week or fe-
ven years; and I imagine that our author
will ſcarce affirm, upon fecond thoughts, that
Chrift could ever confirm the covenant, be-
fore he preached it.
As to what he urges farther, that Jefus
did not cauſe the facrifice and oblation to
ceafe, by any positive injunction, as is here
manifeftly implied, and that he did not do
it virtually by his death, as appears from
Paul, ibid. I anfwer, that there are fome
paffages in the gospel, that plainly intimate
that the facrifice and oblation fhould ceaſe;
as particularly, Joh. iv. 21, 23. where Chrift
tells the Samaritan woman, Believe me, the
bour
[ 211 ]
bour cometh, when ye shall neither in this
mountain, nor yet at Jerufalem, worship the
father. But the hour cometh and now is,
when the true worshippers shall worship the
father in Spirit and in truth. But 'tis fo
far from being true, that the facrifice was
to cease by a pofitive injunction, that there
is a quite different reafon affigned for it in
the prophecy, viz. becaufe Jerufalem and
the fanctuary were to be made defolate, by
an utter deftruction. And of conſequence
the facrifice could not ceafe till this com-
plete defolation; and therefore St. Paul did
right in obeying the laws of his country,
whilft the Jewish conftitution lafted, and
the temple worship continued; tho' he gave
fufficient intimation that theſe things were
foon to cease, both by neglecting the uſe of
them himſelf when out of Judæa, and not
fuffering them to be impofed on the Gen-
tile converts.
His ſeventh remark, and the three obſer-
vations under it, p. 191. &c. I have con-
fidered and answered, p. 162. &c.
Lastly, What he fays of the opinion of
the Jews in Chrift's time, p. 199. is not
one jot to the purpoſe. They did not expect
D d 24
that
[ 212 ]
that the Meffias ſhould be cut off, but that he
Should abide for ever; no not the apostles
and difciples of Jefus himself. But I would
feign know, what their opinion hath to do
with the real fenfe of the Old Teftament
prophecies? If thoſe prophecies did declare,
that the Meffias was to fuffer and die, the
death of Jefus will be a proper accompliſh-
ment of them, tho' the Jews expected and
hoped for the contrary. This was what Jeſus
himſelf often affirmed, appealing to the fcrip-
tures that it must be fo. And tho' we never
read of one particular fcripture quoted by
Christ upon this account, yet what paffages
could he refer to, but thoſe that actually and
plainly foretold his fufferings? And why
fhould not this prophecy of Daniel, which
is the moſt exprefs of all, be of this num-
ber? The truth is, that the Jews knew not
how to reconcile the notion of a triumphant
prince with that of a crucified faviour; and
therefore our bleffed Lord affirms himſelf to
be both, and appeals to the fcriptures in ge-
neral, without pointing out the particular
ones, that proved the one or the other; re-
ferving the full inftruction of his deſciples
'till after his refurrection, and the effufion
of
[213]
of his holy fpirit, which was to be his wit-
neſs and advocate amongſt men, and a ſtand-
ing proof, that tho' he died to make recon-
cilation for iniquity, yet that he was alive
again by the power of God, and invested
with dominion, glory, and a kingdom; even
with an everlasting dominion, never to pass
away, and a kingdom, which should never
be deftroyed; according to Daniel's prophecy
of him, cap. vii. 14, &c.
And thus have I gone thro' this prophecy
of the feventy weeks, and confidered all
the explications and remarks of the author
of the Literal Scheme upon it. And upon a
review, I think, I can honeſtly ſay, that how
much fo ever I value chriftianity, yet that I
have not been prejudiced by it to expound
this prophecy in favour of a religion, that
I heartily believe, and wiſh I could be more
entirely conformed to, both in temper and
practice. I have not, I thank God, willingly
perverted any author that I have cited, nor
interpreted any words, without at leaſt en-
deavouring to understand their meaning. If
I have erred, I can with pleaſure ſubmit
to a friendly correction, and have no notion
fo firmly rivetted in me, but that I hope
I fhall
[ 214 ]
I fhall ever readily exchange it for truth,
when ever I diſcern the evidence and proof
of it.
And upon the whole, I think I can pro-
duce him a prophecy or two relating to
Jefus Chrift; much clearer than that which
is contained in Seneca the Tragedian, of
the diſcovery of America and Groenland.
Venient annis
Secula feris,
&c.
I cannot indeed conceive in what fenfe he
can call this paffage a prophecy. It was well
underſtood in the times of Seneca, that there
were many parts of the world then unknown,
and therefore any man, without the fpirit of
prophecy, might well enough gueſs, that
there would, in time, be farther difcoveries.
And this is all that Seneca fays, founding his
conjecture undoubtedly upon the improve-
ments of navigation, and the diſcoveries that
had been already made by the Romans.
But prophecy is of a quite different nature,
and implies the foretelling a future event,
which doth not depend on any rational
conjectures, or any certain neceffary train of
caufes
[215]
cauſes and effects; or to use the Schematift's
uſe
words, the exiſtence whereof,
vent referred to, had no proof.
before the e-
Such as that
after feventy years, to be reckoned from a
fixed period, a captive people hould be re-
ftored to their native country and liberty,
and a defolate temple fhould be ordered to
be rebuilt, by a certain perfon, called by his
proper name, many years before he was
born. That ſeventy weeks of years, to be
reckoned from a given epoch, fhould deter-
mine the ſtate of the Jewish nation, after
which they were to be given up by God to
their enemies, and at laſt to be made entire-
ly defolate. That juft before the expiration
of this ſeventy weeks, a certain perfon fhould
come, for fuch particular ends and purpoſes,
and be cut off without any to help him ;
after which the Jews temple fhould be de-
ftroyed, and their facrifices made entirely to
ceafe. This prophecy of Daniel was deliver-
ed ſeveral hundred years before the event
ſpoken of happened, and was exactly fulfilled
in it's proper feafon; and therefore argues
the fuperintendence of a wife and powerful
being, who only can foreknow and conduct
fuch
[216]
fuch events; and the divine miffion of our
bleffed faviour, to whom the prophecies re-
lated, and in whom they received their full
accompliſhment.
I ſhall conclude all by fetting down in dif-
ferent columns the literal tranſlation of this
prophecy of Daniel, and the critical verfion
of the Literal Schematift, that he may review
his own ſcheme, in order to correct or con-
firm it.
DANIE L.
Seventy weeks are
determined upon thy
people and upon thy
holy city.
To reftrain tranſ
greffion, and feal up
or compleatly punish
fin.
To bring in ever-
lafting righteouſneſs.
SCHEMATIST.
Seventy weeks are
cut or abbreviated, or
there are but fixty.
three weeks to come
upon thy people and
upon thy holy city.
To put an end to
all punishment for fin,
by reftoring the Jews
to their liberty.
To eſtabliſh righte-
ouſneſs for twenty
years,
To
[217]
To feal up or com-
pleat all viſion and
prophecy, and anoint
the moſt holy.
To fulfil Jeremiah's
prophecy, which was
to be accompliſhed
before the feventy
weeks began, and to
anoint the moſt holy.
Know
therefore
Know
therefore
and underſtand, that
from the going forth
of the royal edict, for
the general return of
the Jews and the re-
building Jerufalem,
(they shall return, and
the ſtreet ſhall be rebuilt
in troubleſome times)
to the finishing this
work, fhall be feven
weeks, or forty nine
years; and fixty two
weeks, or four hun-
dred thirty and four
years after this, in all
four hundred eighty
and three years, prince
Meſſias fhall come.
And
and underſtand, what
thou knoweft already,
that from the going
forth of the word of
God to Jeremiah, un-
to Cyrus the Meffias
prince, fhall be feven
weeks or forty nine
years, tho' he actual
ly came twenty one
years before my deli-
vering to thee this
prophecy; and from
the going forth of the
fame commandment
to Jeremiah, unto an-
other Meffias Judas
Maccabæus, fhall be
fixty two weeks, or
four hundred thirty
E e
and
[ 218 ]
And after fixty two
weeks, or in the last
week of the feventy,
and at the end of it,
this prince Meffias
fhall be cut off, and
there fhall be none to
help him.
And after the ex-
and four years; tho'
I
mean only one
prince Meffias, and
have spoken of no
more.
And after four hun-
dred thirty and four
years, the third Mef-
fias Onias the high-
prieft, of whom I
know no more than I
do of the ſecond, ſhall
be cut off; tho' at the
fame time this Onias
fhall be cut off before
the end of four hun-
dred thirty and four
years, or five years
before Judas Macca-
baus, who was to
come juft at the end
of this period.
And Antiochus E-
piration of the ſeven-piphanes ſhall lay
ty weeks, the people
of the prince that
fhall come, fhall de-
Stroy
waft, but not destroy;
the city and temple,
and overwhelm all
things
[ 219 ]
ftroy the city and the
fanctuary, the end
fhall be the fweeping
away the Jews as with
a flood, and the con-
clufion of the war
ſhall be an entire de-
folation and deſtructi-
on of that people.
However,
during
the laſt week of the ſe-
venty, the prince Mef-
fias fhall confirm the
covenant with many,
and in the laſt half
part of it fhall caufe
the Jewiſh ſacrifices
and oblations to ceaſe.
After which all things
fhall confpire to the
ruine of this people,
till at last the Ro-
mans ſhall ſpread their
victorious enfigns in
the city, and make
it defolate and utterly
confume it, and thus
execute
things by numbers,but
not deſtroy the Jews
as with a flood, and
their defolations ſhall
end at the conclufion
of the war, and the
Jews be again reſtored
to their liberty.
And in the laft
week Antiochus ſhall
allow the Jews to keep
the covenant made
with their fathers, and
to perform their wor-
fhip, which however
he never did allow
them to do. But in
the laſt part of that
week he ſhall caufe
their facrifices to
ceaſe, and ſet up the
idols of the defolator,
which fhall continue
till the end of all the
weeks, after which
the defolator fhall
have
[220]
execute God's deter-
mined vengeance, on
that defolate and a-
bandoned nation.
have vengeance paid
him in his turn, and
the Jews fhall again
recover their religious
and civil liberty.
I leave the world to judge which of the
two interpretations, is moft agreeable to the
letter of the original text, moſt confiftent
with it felf, and beft verified by the events;
and pray God the evidence of the truth of
Chriſtianity may be fairly confidered, by
fuch as are prejudiced against it, that being
brought to the acknowledgement of the
truth as it is in Jefus, they may have
power to become the fons of God, and at
laft obtain the promised inheritance.
FINI S.
N I S.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 02437 5878
}
DO NOT REMOVE
OR
MUTILATE CARD
F
t