'left at liberty to dispense this gift, in all respects, as he fhould think proper. No wonder then, that they 'fhould mifconceive of its character, and entertain very ⚫ different notions about the exercife of this power from ⚫ what the scriptures give them of it.'

If the power and the mode of predicting were entirely at the difpofal of man, it is likely enough that the pro-. 'phet, for his own credit, or for what he might fancy to

4

་

be the fole end of prophecy, might chufe' to predict future events with all poffible clearness, and in fuch fort 'that obftinacy itself muft fee and admit the completion of them: but' if, on the contrary, the prophet was ⚫ only the minister and inftrument of the divine counfels, in the high office committed to him,' those who affume it as a principle, that divine prophecy must be delivered ' with the utmost clearness and perfpicuity, and fulfilled ' with irresistible evidence,—will do well to answer, at their leifure, the following questions. How do they know in what manner, and with what circumstances, it ⚫ was fit for divine wisdom to difpenfe a knowledge of futurity to mankind? How can they previously determine the degree of evidence, with which a predic⚫tion must be either given or fulfilled? What affurance ' have they, that no reasonable ends could be ferved by ' prophecies, expressed with some obfcurity, and accom'plished in a sense much below what may seem necessary to unavoidable conviction? Can they even pretend, on any clear principles of reason, that very important ends, perhaps the most important, may not be answered by that mode of conveyance, which appears to them fo exceptionable? Can they, in a word, determine before-hand, I do not fay with certainty, but with any • colour of probability, what must be the character of di• vine prophecy, when they know not the reason, most ' undoubtedly not all the reafons, why it is given, and

' have even no right to demand that it should be given at 'all? Till these, and other questions of the like fort, be 'pertinently answered, it must be in vain to cenfure the ways of providence, as not corresponding to our im'perfect and short-fighted views 46'

The ill fuccefs of men in explaining prophecies of ' events, not yet come to pafs, can,' fays the bp. of Worcefter in another place, in no degree difcredit those 'prophecies, unless it be effential to this fort of revela⚫tion to be so clearly propofed, as that it may and must be perfectly underflood, before thofe events happen; the contrary of which I have' fhewn. The very 'idea of prophecy is that of a light fhining in a dark 'place" and a place is not dark, if we have light ⚫ enough to difcern diftin&tly and fully every remote corner of it. But the thing speaks itfelf. For to what 'end is the prediction delivered in obfcure and enig⚫matic terms, if the purpose of the infpirer was, that the 'fubject of the prediction should be immediately, and in 'all its circumstances, precisely apprehended? Why, then, is any distinction made between Prophecy and • Hiftory? The mode of writing clearly demonftrates, 'that something, for a time at least, was meant to be concealed from us 48.'

It has been objected, as a circumftance altogether ftrange and improbable, that so fignal a gift as that of prophecy fhould have been bestowed upon the Jews, a nation fo obfcure, inconfiderable, unenlightened. On this point alfo I quote from bp. Hurd. To prove the truth of Chriftianity, and to forefhew the advent of the Meffiah, with the revolutions and the establishment of his kingdom; was, fays the prelate, the purpose of

prophecy. It was therefore confined to one nation, 'purposely fet apart to preferve and atteft the oracles of

6

6

God; and to exhibit, in their public records and whole 'hiftory, the proofs and credentials of an amazing dif'penfation, which God had decreed to accomplish in Chrift Jefus. The teftimony thought fit to be given was not one or two prophecies only, but a scheme of 'prophecy, gradually prepared and continued through a large tract of time. But how could fuch a fcheme be 'executed, or rather how could it clearly be feen that there was fuch a scheme in view, if fome one people had not been made the repofitory, and, in part, the inftrument of the divine counfels in regard to Jefus ; fome one people, I fay, among whom we might trace the feveral parts of fuch a scheme, and obferve the de'pendance they had on each other?--For had the notices concerning the redeemer been difperfed indifferently ⚫ among all nations, where had been that uncorrupt and 'unfuspected testimony, that continuity of evidence, that unbroken chain of prediction, all tending, by just degrees, to the fame point, which we now contemplate ⚫ with wonder in the Jewish fcriptures? It is not then that the reft of the world was overlooked in the plan ' of God's providence; but that he faw fit to employ the miniftry of one people: this laft, I fay, and not the other, is the reafon why the divine communications concerning Chrift were appropriated to the Jews. Yes, but fome one of the greater nations had better "been intrufted with that charge." This circumstance, I allow, might have ftruck a fuperficial obferver more: but could the integrity of the prophetic fcheme have 'been more difcernible amidst the multiform and in'finitely involved tranfactions of a mighty people, than in the fimpler ftory of this small Jewish family? Or would the hand or work of God, who loves to mani

66

'feft

* feft himself by weak inftruments, have been more con'fpicuous in that defignation?-The benefits of prophecy, though conveyed by one nation, would finally 'redound to all; and the more effectually, we have seen, for being conveyed by one nation. May we not con'clude then (having the fact, as I faid, to reafon upon) 'that, to obtain fuch purpose, it was fit to select a peculiar people? And, if thus much be acknowledged, it will hardly be thought a queftion of much moment, * though no answer could be given to it, why the Jews ' had that exclufive privilege conferred upon them"49.’

It has been urged, by the objectors against prophecy, that the pointing out of future events is to be fatisfactorily accounted for by that fuperior degree of fagacity, by which fome men are feen to be diftinguifhed; and that conjectures, as experience informs us, will not unfrequently be realized by chance and a felicity of coincidence. This objection bp. Hurd has anfwered at confiderable length. Much as I have quoted from this able writer, I am unwilling to omit the infertion of a part of his reply. That the completion of two or three predictions, though they perfectly correspond to the events to which they are applied, does not infer a certainty of inspiration, the bishop of Worcester readily admits. If, however, fays the prelate, the prophecies in the Old and New Teftament be very numerous, and if those 'prophecies, so many of them, I mean, as are alleged in 'this controverfy with unbelievers, have had a reafonable completion,-it must appear highly credible and probable, that fo numerous prophecies, fo fulfilled, had ' not their origin from human conjecture, nor their accomplishment from what we call chance. For mere conjecture is not ufually fo happy; nor chance fo con

49 Vol.
I.

P. 75-79.

6

6

ftant. Farther fill; if the fcriptural prophecies have 'been completed in numerous inftances, and if in no inftance whatsoever can it be clearly fhewn, that they have failed in the event, the prefumption is ftill ftronger that fuch coincidence could not be fortuitous; and a material difference between fcriptural prophecy and pagan divination is, at the fame time, pointed out. For, that, in the multitude of pretended oracles in the days of paganism, fome few only fhould come to pass, while the generality of them fell to the ground, may 'well be the sport of fortune. But, that very many prophecies, recorded in our fcriptures, have had an evi'dent completion, when not one of all thofe, there re'corded, can be convicted of impofture, muft furely be the work of defign.' But the prophecies of fcripture are not merely numerous. A great number of them are alfo eminently minute and circumflantial. • On the 'whole, the general evidence for the truth of Chrif 'tianity, as refulting from the fcriptural prophecies, though poffibly not that, which some may wish or expect, is yet apparently very confiderable. Some coin'cidences might fall out, by accident; and more might 'be imagined. But when fo many, and fuch prophecies ' are brought together, and compared with their corref 'ponding events, it becomes ridiculous (because the ef'fect is in no degree proportioned to the cause) to say of fuch coincidences, that they are the creatures of fancy, or could have been the work of chance50.

་

• The truth of our religion, like the truth of common matters, is,' fays bp. Butler, to be judged of by all the 'evidence taken together. And unlefs the whole feries of things which may be alleged in this argument, and every particular thing in it, can reafonably be fuppofed

s Vol. I. p. 107, 120.

'to