Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

two or three short remarks, such as occur to me, on the sudden, in reading your letter. .

Your main difficulties are these two: 1. That the author of the Book of Daniel is too clear for a prophet ; as appears from his prediction of the Persian and Macedonian affairs : And 2. too fabulous for a contemporary historian; as is evident, you suppose, from his mistakes, chiefly, I think, in the vith chapter.

[ocr errors]

1. The first of these difficulties is an extraordinary one. For why may not prophecy, if the Inspirer think fit, be as clear as history? Scriptural prophecy, whence your idea of its

' obscurity is taken, is occasionally thus clear, I mean after the event: And Daniel's prophecy of the revolutions in the Grecian empire would have been obscure enough to Porphyry himself, before it.

But your opinion, after all, when you come to explain yourself, really is, as one should expect, that, as a prophet, Daniel is not clear enough: for you enforce the old objection of Porphyry by observing, That, where a pretended prophecy is clear to a certain point of time, and afterwards obscure and shadowy,

V 107

[ocr errors]

CC 2

2

there common sense leads one to conclude that the author of it is an impostor.

This reasoning is plausible, but not conclusive, unless it be taken for granted that a prophecy must, in all its parts, be equally clear and precise: whereas, on the supposition of real inspiration, it may

be fit, I mean it may suit with the views of the Inspirer, to predict some things with more perspicuity, and in terms more obviously and directly applicable to the events in which they are fulfilled, than others.' But, further, this reasoning, whatever force it may have, has no place here; at least, you evidently beg the question when you urge it; because the persons;' you dispute against, maintain, That the subsequent prophecies of Daniel are equally distinct with the preceding ones concerning the Persian and Macedonian empires, at least so much of them as they take to have been fulfilled, and that, to judge of the rest, we must wait for the completion of them.

However, you admit that the suspicion arising from the clearest prophecy may be removed by direct positive evidence that it was composed before the event. carry your notions of that evidence very far,

But then you

when you require “ that the existence of such: . "a prophecy prior to the accomplishment “ should be proved by the knowledge of it

being generally diffused amongst an enlightsened nation, previous to that period, and its

public existence attested by an unbroken $6 chain of authentic writers.".

66

66

What
you

here claim as a matter of right, is, without question, very desirable, but should, I think, be accepted, if it be given at all, as a matter of courtesy. For what you describe is the utmost evidence that the case admits: but what right have we, in this or any other subject whether of natural or revealed religion, to the utmost evidence? Is it not enough that the evidence be sufficient to induce a reasonable assent? And is not that assent reasonable, which is paid to real evidence, though of an inferior kind, when uncontrouled by any greater? And such evidence we clearly have for the authenticity of the book of Daniel, in the reception of it, by the Jewish nation, down to the time of Jesus, whose appeal to it supposes and implies that reception to have been constant and general: Not to observe that the testimony of Jesus is further supported by all the considerations that are alledged for his own divine character. To this evidence, which

[ocr errors]

is positive so far as it goes, you have nothing to oppose,

but surmise and conjecture, that is, nothing that deserves to be called evidence. But I doubt, Sir, you take for granted, that the claim of inspiration is never to be allowed, so long as there is a possibility of supposing that it was not given.

[ocr errors]

II. In the second division of

your Letter, which is longer and more laboured than the first, you endeavour to shew that the historical part of the book of Daniel, chiefly that of the sixth chapter, is false and fabulous, and, as such, confutes and overturns the prophetical. What you say on this head is contained under five articles.

3. You think it strange that Daniel, or any other man, should be advanced to a great of, fice of state, for his skill in divination.

[ocr errors]

But here, first, you forget that Joseph was thus advanced, and for the same reason : Or, if you object to this instance, what should

. hinder the advancement either of Joseph or Daniel (when their skill in divination had once brought them into the notice and favour of their sovereign) for what you call mere human accomplishments ? For such assuredly both

1

these great men possessed, if we may believe the plain part of their story, which asserts of Joseph, and indeed proves, that he was, in no common degree, discreet and wise ; and of Daniel, that an excellent spirit was found in him, nay that he had knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom, over and above his understanding in all visions and dreams. In short, Sir, though princes of old might not make it a rule to chuse their ministers, out of their soothsayers, yet neither would their being soothsayers, if they were otherwise well accomplished, prevent them from being ministers: Just as in modern times, though churchmen have not often, I will suppose, been made officers of state, even by bigotted princes, because they were churchmen, yet neither have they been always set aside from serving in those stations, when they have been found eminently qualified for them. s

2. Your next exception is, That a combination could scarce have been formed in the court of Babylon against the favourite minister (though such factions are common in other courts) because the courtiers of Darius must have apprehended that the piety of Daniel would be asserted by: a miraculous interpok sition; of which they had seen a striking in

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« ForrigeFortsæt »