7. It is objected, that Jonathan, who made the Chaldee paraphrases on the prophets, has omitted Daniel: from whence it should seem, 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 paraphrases extant, as the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Jonathan might perhaps not make a Targum or Chaldee paraphrase on Daniel, because half of the book is written in Chaldee. Or he 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 though 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 describing the same events; and consequently 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 since 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 Josephus speaketh of him as one of the greatest of the prophets.

7

8. That part of Daniel, says the objector, which is written in Chaldee, is near the style of the old Chaldee paraphrases; which being composed many hundred years after Daniel's time, must have a very different style 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 paraphrases. But by the same 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 style of Daniel's Chaldee differs more from that of the old Chaldee paraphrases, than Homer doth from the latest of the Greek classic writers: and when it was said by Prideaux and Kidder, whose authority the objector alleges, that the old Chaldee paraphrases came near to the Chaldee of Daniel, it was not said absolutely but comparatively with respect to other paraphrases, 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 honour, and particularly under the name of Daniel: and the Joseph. Antiq. 1. 10, c. 10 et 11.

book of Daniel seems composed to do honour to the Jews, in the person of Daniel, in making a Jew superior to all the wise 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 genuine books of the same men. Some pieces in Greek have been forged under the name of Daniel, and therefore he wrote no book 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 composing; 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 side. Some books have been counterfeited in the name of this or that writer; and therefore that there were some genuine 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 past, after a prophetical manner, by his uncommon punctuality, by not only foretelling things to come, like other prophets, but fixing the time when the things were to happen. But other prophets and other prophecies have prefixed the time for several events; as 120 years for the continuance of the antediluvian world; 400 years for the sojourning of Abraham's seed in a strange land; 40 years for the peregrination of the children of Israel; 65 years for Ephraim's continuing a people; 70 years for the desolation 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 of Daniel. Daniel may have done it in more instances than any other prophet: but why might not God, if he was so pleased, foretell the dates and periods of any events, as well as the events themselves? Josephus, whom the objector hath quoted upon this occasion, differs totally from him. He 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.

Lastly, it is objected, that the book of Daniel sets forth facts very imperfectly, and often contrary to other historical relations,

* Τὰ γὰρ βιβλια, ὅσα δὴ συγγραψάμενος και ταλέλοιπεν, ἀναγινώσκεται παρ' ἡμῖν ἔτι καὶ νῦν· καὶ πεπιστεύκαμεν ἐξ αὐτῶν, ὅτι Δανιῆλος ὡμίλει τῷ Θεῷ. Οὐ γὰρ τὰ μέλλοντα μόνον προς φητεύων διετέλει, καθάπερ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι προς φῆται, ἀλλὰ καὶ καιρὸν ὥριζεν, εἰς ὃν ταῦτα robhσerai. Libri enim, quotquot a se con

scriptos reliquit, leguntur hodieque apud nos: atque ii nobis fidem faciunt, Danielum cum Deo colloquia habuisse. Non enim futura solum, quemadmodum et alii vates, prædicere solebat, sed et tempus, quo hæc eventura erant, præfinivit. Joseph Antiq. l. 10, c. 11, § 7.

and the whole is written in a dark and emblematical style, 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 design, which was not to write a history but prophecies, and history only so far as it relates to his prophecies. As to his writing con trary 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 style and genius of all the eastern writers of his time. They were so 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 objection 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 genuineness and authenticity of the book of Daniel? There is all the external evidence that can well be had or desired 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 Josephus particularly, who commends 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 styleth him Daniel the prophet; of ancient historians, who relate many of the same transactions; of the mother of the seven sons and of the father of the Maccabees, who both recommend the example of Daniel to their sons; of old Eleazar in Egypt, who, praying for the Jews then suffering under the persecution 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 Jewish high-priest, who shewed Daniel's prophecies to Alexander the Great, while he was at Jerusalem; and still higher, of Ezekiel, a contempoFary writer, who greatly extols his picty and wisdom. Nor is

the internal less powerful and convincing than the external evidence; for the language, the style, 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 genuineness and authenticity of the book of Daniel being therefore established beyond all reasonable contradiction, we may now proceed in our main design: and the vision of the ram and he-goat, and the prophecy of the things noted in the Scripture of truth, and the transactions of the kings of the north and the south, will find sufficient matter for our meditations this year. Another year will be fully employed on our Saviour's prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews, together with St. Paul's prophecies of the Man of Sin, and of the apostacy of the latter times. The last and most difficult task of all will be an analysis or explication of the Apocalypse or Revelation of St. John. It is a hazardous attempt, in our little bark, to venture on that dangerous ocean, where so many stouter vessels and abler pilots have been shipwrecked and lost: but possibly we may be the better able to sail through it, coming prepared, careened and sheathed, as I may say, for such a voyage, by the assistance of the former prophets, having particularly Daniel and St. Paul as our pole-star and compass, and begging withal of God's Holy Spirit to steer and direct our course. The conclusion will consist of reflections and inferences from the whole. In this manner, with the Divine assistance, shall be employed the three years, which is the period usually allotted to these exercises; and it is hoped that the design of the honourable founder will in some measure be answered by proving the truth of revelation from the truth of prophecy. It was indeed a noble design, after a life spent in the study of philosophy, and equally devoted to the service of religion, to benefit posterity not only by his own useful and numerous writings, theological as well as philosophical, but also by engaging the thoughts and pens of others in defence of natural and revealed religion; and some of the best treatises on these subjects in the English language, or indeed in any language, are owing to his institution. This is continuing to do good even after death; and what was said of Abel's faith, may also be said of his, that "by it he being dead, yet speaketh."

From the instance of this excellent person, and some others who might be mentioned, it appears that there is nothing inconsistent in science and religion, but a great philosopher may be a good Christian. True philosophy is indeed the handmaid to true religion and the knowledge of the works of nature will lead

one to the knowledge of the God of nature, "the invisible things of him being clearly seen by the things which are made; even his eternal power and Godhead." They are only minute philosophers, who are skeptics and unbelievers. Smatterers in science, they are but smatterers in religion. Whereas the most eminent philosophers, those who have done honour to the nation, done honour to human nature itself, have also been believers and defenders of revelation, have studied Scripture as well as nature, have searched after God in his word as well as in his works, and have even made comments on several parts of Holy Writ. So just and true is the observation of the Lord Bacon, one of the illustrious persons here intended; A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.'

H

XV.-DANIEL'S VISION OF THE RAM AND HE-GOAT.

[ITHERTO the prophecies of Daniel, that is from the fourth verse of the second chapter to the eighth chapter, are written in Chaldee. As they greatly concerned the Chaldæans, so they were published in that language. But the remaining prophecies are written in Hebrew, because they treat altogether of affairs subsequent to the times of the Chaldæans, and no ways relate to them, but principally to the church and people of God. Which is a plain proof, that the Scriptures were originally written in such a manner as they might be best understood by the people and consequently it is defeating the very end and design of writing them, to "take away the key of knowledge," and to keep them locked up in an unknown tongue. We may observe too that in the former part of the book of Daniel he is generally spoken of in the third person, but in the latter part he speaketh of himself in the first person, which is some kind of proof that this part was written by himself if the other was not, but probably this diversity might arise from the different dates, the one being written some time after the other.

1

Daniel's former vision of the four great beasts, representing the four great empires of the world, was (vii. 1) "in the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon." He had another vision in the third year of the reign of the same king Belshazzar, that is about 553 years before Christ, (viii. 1,) "In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar, a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first." It was exhibited to him (ver. 2) at the palace in Shushan, and by the side of the river Ulai or Ulaus, as it is 1 See Usher, Prideaux, and other chronologers.

Lord Bacon's Essays, xvii.