the Jewish prophets, whom no gifts could bribe, and no power awe in the discharge of their duty. Demosthenes, in one of his speeches to the Athenians, publicly charges this oracle with being "gained over to the interests of King Philip;" and the Greek historians give other instances in which it had been corrupted by money, and the prophetess sometimes deposed for bribery, sometimes for lewdness. Neither threats nor persecutions had any influence with the Jewish prophets; but it would seem that this celebrated Oracle of Apollo was not even proof against raillery. At first it gave its answers in verse; but the Epicureans, Cynics, and others laughing so much at the poorness of the versification, it fell at length into prose. " It was surprising," said these philosophic wits, " that Apollo, the god of poetry, should be a much worse poet than Homer, whom he himself had inspired." Plutarch considers this as a principal cause of the declension of the Oracle of Delphos. Doubtless it had declined much in credit, in his day; and the further spread of Christianity completed its ruin. Can then the prophecies of Scripture be paralleled with these dark, and venal, and delusive oracles, without impiety? and could any higher honour be wished for the Jewish prophets, than the comparison into which they are thus brought with the agents of paganism at Delphos and other places? They had recourse to no smooth speeches, no compliances with the tempers and prejudices of men. They concealed no truth which they were commissioned to declare, however displeasing to their nation, and hazardous to themselves. They required no caves, or secret places of temples, from which to utter their messages; and those 'who consulted them were not practised upon by the bewildering ceremonies imposed upon enquirers at Delphos. They prophesied in streets, and courts, and palaces, and in the midst of large assemblies. Their predictions had a clear, determinate, and consistent sense; and they described future events with so many particularities of time and place, as made it scarcely possible that they should be misunderstood, or misapplied. an ample confutation of all their impertinences: "When we come to consult thee," says he to Apollo, " if thou seest what is in futurity, why dost thou use expressions that will not be understood? If thou dost, thou takest pleasure in abusing us; if thou dost not, be informed of us, and learn to speak more clearly. - I tell thee, that if thou intendedst an equivoque, the Greek word whereby thou affirmedst that Cræsus should overthrow a great empire, was ill chosen; and that it could signify nothing but Cræsus's conquering Cyrus. If things must necessarily come to pass, why dost thou amuse us with thy ambiguities? What dost thou, wretch as thou art, at Delphi; employed in muttering idle prophecies ? Pure and elevated as was the character of the Jewish prophets, the hardihood of infidelity has attempted to asperse their character; because it appears from Scripture story, that there were false prophets and bad men who bore that name. Balaam is instanced, though not a Jewish prophet; but that he was always a bad man, wants proof. The probability is, that his virtue was overcome by the offers of Balak; and the prophetic spirit was not taken away from him, because there was an evident design on the part of God to make his favour to Israel more conspicuous, by obliging a reluctant prophet to bless, when he would have cursed, and that in the very presence of a hostile king. When that work was done, Balaam was consigned to his proper punishment. With respect to the Jewish false prophets, it is a singular proceeding to condemn the true ones for their sake, and to argue that because bad men assumed their functions, and imitated their manner, for corrupt purposes, the universally received prophets of the nation,-men who, from the proofs they gave of their inspiration, had their commission acknowledged even by those who hated them, and their writings received into the Jewish canon,were bad men also. Let the characters of Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Nathan, Isaiah, Jeremiah, (9) Daniel, and the authors of the other prophetical books, be considered; and how true are the words of the Apostle, that they were "HOLY men of old," as well as that they were " moved by the Holy Ghost!" That the prophets who prophesied "smooth things" were never considered as true prophets, except for a time by a few who wished to have their hopes flattered, is plain from this-none of their writings were preserved by the Jews. Their predictions would not abound in reproofs and threatenings, like those of Isaiah and Jeremiah; and yet the words of those prophets who were personally most displeasing to the Jews of the age in which they lived, have been preserved, whilst every flattering prophecy was suffered to fall into oblivion almost as soon as it was uttered. we have a more decisive proof than this, that the false prophets were a perfectly distinct class of men, the venal imitators of these "holy men of old;" but who never gave, even to those most disposed to listen to their delusive prophecies, a satisfactory proof of their prophetic commission? Can (9) A weak attempt has been made by some infidel writers to fasten a charge of falsehood on Jeremiah, in the case of his confidential interview with King Zedekiah. A satisfactory refutation is given by Bishop WATSON in his Answer to Paiue, Letter vi. Attempts have been made to shew, that a few of the prophecies of Scripture have failed. The following are the principal instances: It has been said, that a false promise was made to Abraham, when it was promised to him, that his descendants should possess the territory which lies between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt. But this objection is clearly made in ignorance of the Scriptures; for the fact is, that David conquered that territory, and that the dominions of Solomon were thus extended. (1) Voltaire objects, that the prophets made promises to the Jews of the most unbounded riches, dominion, and influence; insomuch that they could only have been accomplished by their conquering or proselyting the entire of the habitable globe. On the contrary, he says, they have lost their possessions instead of obtaining either property or power, and therefore the prophecies are false. The case is here unfairly stated. The prophets never made such exaggerated promises. They predict many spiritual blessings to be bestowed in the times of Messiah, under figures drawn from worldly opulence and power, the figurative language of which no attentive reader can mistake. They also promise many civil advantages, but only conditionally on the obedience of the nation; and they speak in high terms of the state of the Jewish nation, upon its final restoration, for which objectors must wait before they can determine the predictions to be false. But did not Voltaire know, that the loss of their own country by the Jews, of which he speaks, was predicted in the clearest manner? and would he not have seen, had he not been blinded by his prejudices, that his very objection acknowledges the truth of prophecy? The promises of the prophets have not been falsified in the instance given, but their threats have been signally fulfilled. Paine, following preceding writers of the same sentiments, asserts the prophecy of Isaiah to Ahaz not to have been verified by the event, and is thus answered by Bishop Watson: (2) "The prophecy is quoted by you, to prove, and it is the only instance you produce, that Isaiah was ' a lying prophet and impostor.' Now I maintain, that this very instance proves that he was a true prophet and no impostor. The history of the prophecy, as delivered in the seventh chapter, is this-Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah king of Israel, made war upon Ahaz king of Judah ; not merely, or, perhaps, not at all, for the sake of plunder, or (1) Vide 2 Sam. viii; 1 Chron. xviii. (2) Apology, Letter v. the conquest of territory, but with a declared purpose of making an entire revolution in the government of Judah, of destroying the royal house of David, and of placing another family on the throne. Their purpose is thus expressed- Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and, set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal.' Now what did the Lord commission Isaiah to say to Ahaz? Did he commission him to say, The kings shall not vex thee? No.-The kings shall not conquer thee? No.-The kings shall not succeed against thee? No:-he commissioned him to say-' It (the purpose of the two kings) shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.' I demand-Did it stand, did it come to pass? Was any revolution effected? Was the royal house of David dethroned and destroyed? Was Tabeal ever made king of Judah? No. The prophecy was perfectly accomplished. You say, 'Instead of these two kings failing in their attempt against Ahaz, they succeeded: Ahaz was defeated and destroyed.' I deny the fact: Ahaz was defeated, but not destroyed; and even the 'two hundred thousand women, and sons, and daughters,' whom you represent as carried into captivity, were not carried into captivity: they were made captives, but they were not carried into captivity; for the chief men of Samaria, being admonished by a prophet, would not suffer Pekah to bring the captives into the land- They rose up, and took the captives, and with the spoil clothed all that were naked among them, and arrayed them and shod them, and gave them to eat and to drink, and anointed them, and carried all the feeble of them upon asses, (some humanity, you see, amongst those Israelites, whom you every where represent as barbarous brutes,) and brought them to Jericho, the city of palm trees, to their brethren.' 2 Chron. xxviii, 15. The kings did fail in their attempt: their attempt was to destroy the house of David, and to make a revolution; but they made no revolution; they did not destroy the house of David, for Ahaz slept with his fathers; and Hezekiah his son, of the house of David, reigned in his stead." A similar attempt is made by the same writer to fix a charge of false vaticination upon Jeremiah, and is thus answered by the same writer: "In the 34th chapter is a prophecy of Jeremiah to Zedekiah, in these words, verse 2.-Thus saith the Lord, Behold I will give this city into the hands of the king of Babylon, and will burn it with fire; and thou shalt not escape out of his hand, but thou shalt surely be taken, and delivered into his hand; and thine eyes shall behold the eyes of the king of Babylon, and he shall speak with thee mouth to mouth, and thou shalt go to Babylon. Yet hear the word of the Lord, O Zedekiah, king of Judah: thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not die by the sword, but thou shalt die in peace; and with the burnings of thy fathers, the former kings that were before thee, so shall they burn odours for thee, and will lament thee, saying Ah, lord! for I have pronounced the word, saith the Lord. Now, instead of Ze'dekiah beholding the eyes of the king of Babylon, and speaking ' with him mouth to mouth, and dying in peace, and with the 'burnings of odours at the funeral of his fathers, (as Jeremiah hath declared the Lord himself had pronounced,) the reverse, 'according to the 52d chapter, was the case: It is there stated, ' (verse 10,) That the king of Babylon slere the sons of Zedekiah 'before his eyes; then he put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound ' him in chains, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his death. What can we say of these prophets, ' but that they are impostors and liars?' I can say this-that the prophecy you have produced was fulfilled in all its parts; and what then shall be said of those who call Jeremiah a liar and an impostor? Here then we are fairly at issue-you affirm that the prophecy was not fulfilled, and I affirm that it was fulfilled in all its parts. I will give this city into the hands of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire:' so says the prophet; what says the history ? They (the forces of the king of Babylon) burnt the house of God, and brake down the walls of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire.' 2 Chron. xxxvi, 19.- Thou shalt not escape out of his hand, but thou shalt surely be taken, and delivered into his hand:' so says the prophet; what says the history ? The men of war fled by night, and the king went the way towards the plain, and the army of the Chaldees pursued after the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho; and all his army were scattered from him: so they took the king, and brought him up to the king of Babylon, to Riblah.' 2 Kings, xxv, 5. The prophet goes on, Thine eyes shall behold the eyes of the king of Babylon, and he shall speak with thee mouth to mouth. No pleasant circumstance this to Zedekiah, who had provoked the king of Babylon by revolting from him. The history says, 'The king of Babylon gave judgment upon Zedekiah,' or, as it is more literally rendered from the Hebrew, spake judgments with him at Riblah.' The prophet concludes this part with, 'And thou shalt go to Babylon:' the history says, 'The king of Babylon bound him in chains, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his death. Jer. lii, 11. Thou shalt not die by the sword.' He did not die by the sword, he did not fall |