tions, in this cafe, between things, to a certain degree. But perfect accommodations feem impoffible and accordingly, no explications grounded on the before-mention'd pretended rules, of any prophefies existing before the events, and referr'd to paft events, will perfectly agree to thofe events (tho' the pretended peculiarity of the language gives the explainers the utmost latitude to affign what ideas they please to words); as (for an example) may be feen by the feveral explications invented in relation to DANIEL'S weeks, or any other fuch prophefies. For as to DANIEL'S weeks; let them understand by weeks, weeks of years (tho' there be no (e) foundation in the Old Testament for fuch ufe of the word) or what other portion of time they think fit; let them understand by a year, the Jewish or Chaldean, a lunar or folar year, or a myftical year, which, it feems, confifts (f) of 343 days; let them begin the weeks in the reign of CYRUS, or DARIUS, or XERXES, or in the feventh or twentieth of ARTAXERXES LONGIMANUS, or when DANIEL had his vifion (for the (g) going forth of the commandment to build and reftore Ferufalem, which is fuppos'd to fix (e) Le Clerc Bibl. Choif. tom. 15. p. 201. (f) Crenii Fafcic. primus, p. 406. (g) Dan 9. 25. fix the time when the weeks begin, is thus variously understood); let them fix the time of Jesus's birth, or beginning to preach, or death, when they please (for very different years are affign'd for each of thefe); and let them affign the time of the expiration of the 70 weeks, which is very variously fix'd, when they please: yet cannot this prophefy be made to fquare to the event they would refer it, and it will after all be fubject to great (b) difficulties. Bifhop MouNTAGUE, after having finifh'd his explication of this prophesy, (i) says, that Prophefies are accompany'd with extenfions, not ever precifely at, or upon, but about fuch a time, to be accomplish'd; and therefore they are not to be freightend to an hour, a day, a month, or certain fet period, punctually, but left unto a latitude or extent. The learned (k) ISAAC VOSSIUS fays, Nulla Chronologia pars vexatior eft, ac illa, que agit de 70 hebdomadibus DANIELIS. Ab Apoftolicis temporibus ad noftram ufq; atatem laboravere in boc argumento complures, Viri fancti & eruditi. Sed fi ufquam, certè hic vanus & irritus fuit ipforum labor. Peccavere tam in principio quam fi ne (b) Prideaux's Connection, Vol. 1. p. 306.. ne bebdomadibus iftis adfignando, adeoq; a fe invicem longe abivere, ut fi quis difcrepan tes eorum evolvat fententias, facile intelligat, ubi tanta eft contentio, ibi vel nullam vel incertam effe veritatem. Dr. NICHOLS, in his (7) elaborate work against the deifts, fays in relation to this prophefy of DANIEL, The wife providence of God hath fuffer'd thefe matters to lye in fome manner of confufion, that our faith might be founded on a nobler principle than that of chronological niceties. And the ingenious and learned Sir JOHN FLOYER, one of the latest explainers of this prophefy, fays, (m) That the Holy Spirit feems always to defign a variety of computation in MOST prophefies, that the completion might not be exactly known; and the defign of the computations is only to point out the age when the great events are to happen, and begin or end. But the agreements beforemention'd, between explications and events, being often fuch as greatly affect men, who are willing and forward to believe certain prophecies rightly explain'd, I will make a further obfervation; which will in my opinion confound this fcheme of literal-myftical prophefy () Nichols's Conf. with a Theift, Vol. 3. p. 107. (m) Floyer's Prophefies of Efdras, &c. p. 139. phefy founded on the pretended intelligibility of prophetick language as a peculiar language; and that is as follows. If Mr. WHISTON, and others, have, as they pretend, found out the rules of the prophetick language of the bible, they must be as able to explain, in virtue of thofe rules, the prophefies therein contain'd, which relate to events to come, as those which relate to events that are past. For if the language be fix'd and certain, there can be no more difficulty in understanding the former than the latter. But there have been no explainers of the Revelation of St. JOHN (for example) but are at endless and at the greatest contradictions with each other about the trumpets, the feals, the vials, and the white horse, &c. and time has and daily does difcover their egregious mistakes (not excepting the mistakes of Mr. WHISTON himself, who has liv'd long enough to see himself mistaken in fome of the prophetick language of the Revelation) in explaining the faid book, which has been apply'd to all ages of the church, as having a view to the feveral herefies, fchifins, battles, and revolutions which have happen'd. This scheme of a prophetick language, therefore, being not yet understood by any mortal, fhould be wholly laid afide; and by confequence a literal prophefy in Mr. WHIS WHISTON'S fenfe is a mere chimera, that never existed, but in the explainer's brain. [3.] Thirdly, the allegorical method of explaining and applying prophefies should feem very proper for the apoftles; who were Jews; and who were used not only to the parabolical and myftical difcourfes of our Saviour (many of which are fuppos'd to have been common (2) among the Jews, and are now to be found in their Talmud), but to his myftical prophefies. He often spoke only to those who (0) bad ears to hear, and fometimes fo as (p) not to be understood by any body at the time he fpoke. He spoke of bread, and of water, and of the temple, and of being born again, but meant contrary to the judgment of his hearers (fome of whom he knew, as he intended they should, would understand him according to the letter) Spiritual bread, myftical water, the temple of his body, and Spiritual birth. He prophefy'd of his own death and refurrection in fo typical a manner (faying for example, (q) deftroy this temple, and in three (n) Fabricii Cod. Apoc. Nov. Teft. pars 3. p. 431. Ockley's Letter before Wotton's Mifc. Dife. (0) Luke 14. 35. (p) Ib 9.45. John 16. 17, 18. (q) John 2. 19. |