INTRODUCTION

to the LECTURE founded by the Honorable

ROBERT BOYLE,

January 5, 1756.

HERE is not THER a stronger or more convincing proof of divine revelation than, the fure word of prophecy. But to the truth of prophecy it is objected, that the predictions were written after the events; and could it be proved as well as afferted, it would really be an infuperable objection. It was thought therefore that a greater fervice could not be done to the cause of Chriftianity, than by an induction of particulars to show, that the predictions were prior to the events, nay that feveral prophecies have been fulfilled in these later ages, and are fulfilling even at this present time: And for the farther profecution and the better encouragement of this work, I have been called to preach these lectures, by the favor and recommendation of the great prelate, who having himself written moft excellently of the use and intent of prophecy, is alfo willing to reward and encourage any one who bestows his time and pains upon the fame subject. The ready and gracious concurrence of the (1) other trustees was an additional honor and favor, and

(1) The trustees appointed by Mr. Boyle himself were Sir John Rotheram, Serjeant at law, Sir Henry Ashurst of London, Knt. and Bart. Thomas Tenison, D. D. afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, and John Evelyn, Efq; Archbishop Tenison, the furvivor of thefe, nominated and appointed for trustees Richard Earl of Burlington: Dr. Edmund Gibson, then Archdeacon of Surry, afterwards Lord Bishop of London; Dr. Charles Trimnel, then Bishop of

5

Norwich, afterwards Bishop of Winchefter: Dr. White Kennet, then Dean, afterwards Bishop of Peterborough; and Dr. Samuel Bradford, then Rector of St. Mary Le Bow, afterwards Bishop of Rochester. The Earl of Burlington, being the only furviving trustee, appointed to succeed him in the faid trust, William then Marquis of Hartington, now Duke of Devonshire, Dr. Thomas Sherlock Lord Bishop of London, Dr. Martin Benfon Lord Bishop of Glocefter,

and is deferving the most grateful acknowlegements. Engaging in this fervice may indeed have retarded the publication of thefe difcourses longer than was intended: but perhaps they may be the better for the delay, fince there have been more frequent occafions to review and reconfider them; and time corrects and improves works as well as generous wines, at least affords opportunities of correcting and improving them.

This work hath already been deduced to the prophecies of Daniel: and as fome time and pains have been employed in explaining fome parts of his prophecies, and more will be taken in explaining other parts; it may be proper, before we proceed, to confider the principal objections which have been made to the genuinness of the book of Daniel. It was before afferted, that the first who called in question the truth and authenticity of Daniel's prophecies, was the famous Porphyry, who maintained that they were written about the time of Antiochus Epiphanes: but he was amply refuted by (2) Jerome, and hath been and will be more amply refuted ftill in the course of these differtations. A modern infidel hath followed Porphyry's example, and his fcheme of litteral prophecy hath heaped together all that he could find or invent against the book of Daniel, and hath comprised the whole in eleven objections, in order to show that the book was written about the time of the Maccabees: but he likewife hath been refuted to the fatisfaction of every intelligent and impartial reader; as indeed there never were any arguments urged in favorof infidelity, but better were always produced in fupport of truth. The substance of his (3) objections and of the answers to him may with truth and candor be represented in the following manner.

because Ezekiel, who prophefied in the fifth year of Jehoiakim 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. But here the objector is either ignorantly or wilfully guilty of gross mifrepresentation. For Ezekiel did not prophesy in the fifth year of Jehoiakim, nor in the reign of Jehoiakim at all; but he began to prophesy in the fifth year of king Jehoiachin's captivity, the fon and successor of Jehoiakim, (Ezek. I. 2.) that is eleven years after. When Daniel was first carried into captivity, he might be a youth (4) about eighteen: but when Ezekiel magnified his piety and wisdom, (Chap. XIV. and XXVIII.) he was between thirty and forty: and several years before that he had interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream, and was advanced (Dan. II. 48.) to be ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wife men of Babylon; and was therefore very fittand worthy to be celebrated by his fellow-captive Ezekielet

2. His fecond objection is, that Daniel is represented in the book of Daniel as living chiefly at the courts of the kings of Babylon and Perfia; and yet the names of the several kings of his time are all mistaken in the book of Daniel. It is also more fuited to a fabulous writer than to a contemporary historian, to talk of Nebuchadnezzar's dwelling with the beasts of the field, and eating grafs like oxen, &c. and then returning again to the government of his kingdom. Here are two objections confounded in one. As to the mistake of the kings names, there are only four kings mentioned in the book of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, and Cyrus. Of the first and the last there was never any doubt; and the other two may be rightly named, tho they are named differently by the Greek historians, who yet differ as much one from another as from Daniel. It is well known that the eastern monarchs had feveral names; and one might be made use of by one writer, another by another. It is plainly begging the question, to prefume without farther proof, that Daniel was not

(4) Prideaux's Connection, Part 1. B.
U

the

e case of Nebuchadnezzar, it is related indeed in rophetic figurative stile. It is the interpretation of am, and stript of its figures the plain meaning is, Nebuchadnezzar should be punished with madness, d fancy himself a beast and live like a beast, should ade to eat grafs as oren, be obliged to live upon a table diet, but after some time should recover his n, and resume the government. And what is there ous or abfurd in this? The dream was not of el's inditing, but was told by Nebuchadnezzar himThe dream is in a poetic strain, and so likewife e interpretation, the better to show how the one sponded with the other, and how the prophecy and agreed together.

He objects that the book of Daniel could not be en by that Daniel who was carried captive in the -lonish captivity, because it abounds with derivations the Greek, which language was unknown to the till long after the captivity. The affertion is false the book of Daniel abounds with derivations from Greek. There is an affinity only between fome few s in the Greek and the Chaldee language: and why they be derived the one from the other? or if de

why should not the Greeks derive them from the dee, rather than the Chaldees from the Greek? If words in question could be shown to be of Greek ction, yet there was fome communication between eastern kingdoms and the colonies of the Greeks d in Afia Minor before Nebuchadnezzar's time; fo fome particular terms might pass from the Greek the oriental languages. But on the contrary the s in question are shown to be not of Greek but of en derivation; and consequently passed from the east e Greeks, rather than from the Greeks to the eaft. of the words are names of musical instruments; che Greeks (5) acknowlege that they received their mufic

Και τῷ Διονυσῳ την Ασιαν κης, έκειθεν και την πολλην μύσικην

inusic from the eastern nations, from whence they themselves originally defcended.

4. It doth not appear, says the objector, that the book of Daniel was translated into Greek, when the other books of the Old Testament were, which are attributed to the Seventy; the present Greek verfion, inferted in the Septuagint, being taken from Theodotion's tranflation of the Old Testament made in the second century of Christ. But it doth appear, that there was an ancient Greek version of Daniel, which is attributed to the Seventy, as well as the version of the other books of the Old Testament. It is cited by Clemens Romanus, Justin Martyr, and many of the ancient fathers. It was inferted in Origen, and filled a column of his Hexapla. It is quoted feveral times by Jerome; and he faith (6) exprefly, that the version of the Seventy was repudiated by the doctors of the church, and that of Theodotion substituted in the room of it, because it came nearer to the Hebrew verity. This version hath also been lately published from an ancient M. S. dif covered in the Chighian library at Rome.

5. It is objected that divers matters of fact are spoken of with the clearness of history, to the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, who is very particularly dwelt upon, and that with great and feeming fresh resentment for his barbarous ufage of the Jews: And this clearness deter mined Porphyry, and would determin any one to think, that the book was written about the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, the author appearing to be well acquainted with things down to the death of Antiochus but not farther. But what an argument is this against the book of Daniel? His prophecies are clear, and therefore are no prophecies: as if an all-knowing God could not