foretel things clearly; or as if there were not many predictions in other prophets, as clear as any in Daniel. If his prophecies extend not lower than the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, his commission might be limited there, and he would not go beyond his commiffion. But it hath been shown, and will be shown, that there are several prophecies in Daniel relating to times long after the death of Antiochus, and these prophecies are as clear as those before the death of Antiochus. Neither is Antiochus so very particularly dwelt upon as is commonly imagined; neither is he spoken of with greater resentment, than other prophets express towards the kings of Affyria and Babylon. All honeft men, who love liberty and their country, must speak with indignation of tyrants and oppreffors. 6. His fixth objection is, that Daniel is omitted among the prophets recited in Ecclefiafticus, where it seems proper to have mentioned him as a Jewish prophet-author, had the book under his name been received as canonical, when Ecclefiafticus was published. It might have been proper to have mentioned him, had the author been giving a complete catalogue of the Jewish canonical writers. But that is not the cafe. He mentions several who never pretended to be inspired writers, and omits others who really were fo. No mention is made of Job and Ezra, and of the books under their names, as well as of Daniel; and who can account for the filence of authors in any particular at this distance of time? Daniel is proposed (1 Macc. II. 60.) as a pattern by the father of the Maccabees, and his wifdom is highly recommended by Ezekiel; and these are fufficient teftimonies of his antiquity, without the confirmation of a later writer. 7. It is objected, that Jonathan, who made the Chaldee paraphrafes on the prophets, has omitted Daniel : from whence it should feem, the book of Daniel was not of that account with the Jews, as the other books of the prophets were. But there are other books, which were always accounted canonical among the Jews, and yet have no Chaldee paraphrafes extant, as the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Jonathan might perhaps not might have made a Targum on Daniel, and that Targum may have been lost, as other ancient Targums have been destroyed by the injury of time; and there are good proofs in the Misna and other writers cited by Bishop Chandler, that there was an ancient Targum on Daniel. But tho' Jonathan made no Targum on Daniel, yet in his interpretation of other prophets, he frequently applies the prophecies of Daniel, as fuller and clearer in defcribing the fame events; and confequently Daniel was in his esteem a prophet, and at least of equal authority with those before him. The ranking of Daniel among the Hagiographa, and not among the prophets, was done by the Jews fince Christ's time for very obvious reasons. He was always esteemed a prophet by the ancient Jewish church. Our Saviour calleth him Daniel the prophet: and Jofephus (7) speaketh of him as one of the greatest of the prophets. make 8. That part of Daniel, says the objector, which is written in Chaldee, is near the stile of the old Chaldee paraphrafes; which being composed many hundred years after Daniel's time, must have a very different stile from that used in his time, as any one may judge from the nature of language, which is in a constant flux, and in every age deviating from what it was in the former : And therefore that part could not be written at a time very remote from the date of the eldest of those Chaldee paraphrafes. But by the fame argument Homer cannot be so ancient an author, as he is generally reputed, because the Greek language continued much the same many hundred years after his time. Nay the stile of Daniel's Chaldee differs more from that of the old Chaldee paraphrafes, than Homer doth from the latest of the Greek claffic writers: and when it was said by Prideaux and Kidder, whose authority the objector alleges, that the old Chaldee paraphrafes came near to the Chaldee of Daniel, it was not faid absolutely but comparatively, with respect to other paraphrafes, which did not come near to Daniel's purity. 9. It is objected that the Jews were great composers of books under the names of their renowned prophets, to do themselves honor, and particularly under the name of Daniel: and the book of Daniel feems composed to do honor to the Jews, in the perfon of Daniel, in making a Jew fuperior to all the wife men of Babylon. If there is any force in this objection, it is this. There have been books counterfeited under the names of men of renown, therefore there can be no genuin books of the fame men. Some pieces in Greek have been forged under the name of Daniel, and therefore he wrote no books in Chaldee and Hebrew long before those forgeries. In like manner some poems have been ascribed to Homer and Virgil, which were not of their compofing; and therefore the one did not compose the Iliad, nor the other the Æneid. Some false writings have been attributed to St. Peter and St. Paul; and therefore there are no true writings of those apostles. Such arguments sufficiently expose and refute themselves. One would think the inference should rather lie on the other fide, Some books have been counterfeited in the name of this or that writer; and therefore that there were some genuin books of his writing, is a much more probable presumption than the contrary. 10. The tenth objection is, that the author of the book of Daniel appears plainly to be a writer of things paft, after a prophetical manner, by his uncommon punctuality, by not only foretelling things to come, like other prophets, but fixed the time when the things were to happen. But other prophets and other prophecies have prefixed the times for feveral events; as 120 years for the continuance of the antediluvian world; 400 years for the fojourning of Abraham's feed in a strange land; 40 years for the peregrination of the children of Ifrael; 65 years for Ephraim's continuing a people; 70 years for the defolation of Tyre; 70 years for Judah's captivity; and the like: and therefore the fixing of the times cannot be a particular objection against the prophecies phecies of Daniel. Daniel may have done it in more. instances than any other prophet: but why might not God, if he was so pleafed, foretel the dates and periods of any events, as well as the events themselves? Jofephus, whom the objector hath quoted upon this occafion, differs totally from him. He (8) ascribes this punctuality to divine revelation, not like the objector, to the late composition of the book. He infers from it that Daniel was one of the greatest prophets, not like the objector, that he was no prophet at all. 4 Lastly it is objected, that the book of Daniel fets forth facts very imperfectly, and often contrary to other historical relations, and the whole is written in a dark and emblematical stile, with images and symbols unlike the books of other prophets, and taken from the schools of the Greeks. As to Daniel's setting forth facts very imperfectly, he is perfect enough for his defign, which was not to write a history but prophecies, and history only fo far as it relates to his prophecies. As to his writing contrary to other historical relations, it is false. For most of the main facts related by him are confirmed even by heathen historians: but if he contradicted them, yet he would deserve more credit, as he was more ancient than any of them, and lived in the times whereof he wrote. As to his emblems being unlike the books of other prophets, and taken from the schools of the Greeks, this is also false. For the like emblems are often used by other prophets, and are agreeable to the stile and genius of all the eastern writers of his time. They were fo far from being taken from the schools of the Greeks, that on the contrary, if they were ever used by the Greeks, the Greeks borrowed them from the oriental writers. But after all how doth this last ob (8) Τα γαρ βιβλια, όσα δη συγίραψαμενα, καταλελοιπεν, αναγινωσκεται παρ ἡμιν ετι και νυν και πεπιτευκαμεν εξ αυτων, ότι Δανιηλου ώμιλει τῳ Θεῳ. 8 γαρ τα μέλλοντα μονον προφητευων διετελει, καθαπερ και οἱ αλλοι προφη ται, αλλα και leguntur hodieque apud nos: atque ii nobis fidem faciunt, Danielum eum Deo colloquia habuiffe. Non enim futura folum, quemadmodum et alii vates, prædicere folebat, fed et tempus, quo hæc eventura erant, præfinivit. Joseph. Antiq. Lib. 10. Cap. 11. Sect. 7. p. 465. Edit. Hud fon. U 4 jection jection consist and agree with the fifth and tenth? There divers matters of fact were spoken of with the clearness of history, and the author was convicted of forgery by his uncommon punctuality. Here all is dark and emblematical, imperfect and contrary to other histories. Such objections contradict and destroy one another. Both may be false, both cannot be true. These objections being removed, what is there wanting of external or internal evidence to prove the genuinness and authenticity of the book of Daniel? There is all the external evidence that can well be had or defired in a case of this nature; not only the testimony of the whole Jewish church and nation, who have constantly received this book as canonical; but of Jofephus particularly, who recommends him as the greatest of the prophets; of the Jewish Targums and Talmuds, which frequently cite and appeal to his authority; of St. Paul and St. John, who have copied many of his prophecies; of our Saviour himself, who citeth his words, and stileth him Daniel the prophet; of ancient historians, who relate many of the same transactions; of the mother of the seven fons and of the father of the Maccabees, who both recommend the example of Daniel to their fons; of old Eleazar in Egypt, who praying for the Jews then fuffering under the perfecution of Ptolemy Philopater, (3 Macc. VII. 6, 7.) mentions the deliverance of Daniel out of the den of lions, together with the deliverance of the three men out of the fiery furnace; of the Jewith high-priest, who showed Daniel's_prophecies to Alexander the great, while he was at Jerufalem; and still higher, of Ezekiel, a contemporary writer, who greatly extols his piety and wisdom. Nor is the internal less powerful and convincing than the external evidence; for the language, the stile, the manner of writing, and all other internal marks and characters are perfectly agreeable to that age; and he appears plainly and undeniably to have been a prophet by the exact accomplishment of his prophecies, as well those which have already been fulfilled, as those which are now fulfilling in the world. The |