quences. Even the Jews have not denied the miracles of Christ and his apostles, however perplexed to account for them: yet each miracle was equal, at least, to an unexceptionable witness of the resurrection, and consequently to the truth of christianity. This may also answer Mr. P.'s objection to the testimony of the Jews. I suppose no man ever thought of bringing them forward as direct voluntary witnesses to the truth of the Gospel: but they indisputably confirm the antiquity of the Old Testament, and the reverence with which it hath been regarded by their nation for at least five hundred years before Christ; they establish all the facts that relate to him, except his resurrection; and their present condition, fulfils the predictions both of the Old and New Testament. But to say, that the Jews are the best evidence concerning the truth of the Gospel* ;' is to affirm, in other words, that none but enemies should be admitted as witnesses; and that when any of them are convinced and become Christians, their testimony is thenceforth inadmissible.

* P. i. p. 9.

CHAP. III.

PROPHECY.

MR. P. would persuade us, that the prophets were merely poets, or musicians, who made no pretensions to inspiration or prediction; and that the Christian theologists have advanced them to their present rank*! This he endeavours to prove, by observing that there is not a word in the Bible which signifies a poet.'

6

Certainly there is in the New Testament; but if there were not, what would this be to the purpose? There is no word in the Bible for a metaphysician; ergo a prophet signifies a metaphysician!-But he says that the prophets wrote in verse! This they did frequently yet they sometimes wrote in prose. Occasionally they played also on musical instruments. What then? Did none except prophets write poetry, and use music and psalmody? Did they all do these things? The New Testament prophets are not recorded to have used either music or poetry. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are expressly and repeatedly called prophets‡ ; though Mr. P. denies it: and says,

*P. i. p. 17. 19. 60, 61. P. ii. p. 54, 55. Gen. xx. 7. Ps. cv. 9-15.

† Acts xvii

'it does not appear that they could either sing, play 'music, or make poetry.' But whatever were the original idea of a prophet or prophesying, who but Mr. P. would have confidently asserted the meaning at present annexed to those words to be a modern invention? What! did not the ancient Jews expect a Messiah according to the prophets?-Yet he allows that 'the profession of a SEER: the art of seeing, a visionary insight into things concealed, became incor"porated into the word prophet, at the time when Saul ⚫ banished the wizards*! Who can help noting with admiration this writer's consistency?

The words poet and prophet are in pagan writers in some respects synonymous: because the pagans ascribed poetic raptures to inspiration. Thus the poet was exalted into a prophet, not the prophet degraded into a versifier and musician: And I am confident the sober student of the Bible will find very few passages, in which the idea of a divine impulse, in one way or other, is not evidently connected with the words prophet or prophesying; except where false prophets are evidently intended.

The moral character of the man was not essential to the prophetical office. Balaam was a vile wretch ; yet his predictions have been wonderfully accomplished: and many such prophets will be detected at the day of judgment. The evil spirit from God did not come on Saul, when he joined the prophets ; but "the Spirit of God came upon him and he prophesied." But when the spirit of the Lord departed

*P. ii. p. 55.

+1 Sam. x. 6-12. xix. 20-24.

from him, an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him*: and then indeed he acted very ill; for perhaps mi-. micking the agitations of the prophets when under divine impulses, he was instigated by Satan to attempt the murder of David.

A prophet, in Scripture, does not always denote one that predicts future events: but it means in most places a man supernaturally instructed or directed by the Lord; except when false prophets, the counterfeits of the true, are spoken of. The argument concerning prediction does not, however, depend on the meaning of a word: it must be decided by facts.Did not the ancient prophets foretel a variety of circumstances concerning the promised Messiah, which were exactly fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth? Did they not mark out the line whence he would spring, the place of his birth, the miracles which he would perform, the usage which he would experience, the suf ferings which he would endure, his conduct under them, with that of the Jews and soldiers; his death, burial, and resurrection, and the subsequent prevalence of his cause? If this be undeniable; how absurd it is to pretend, that moderns have falsely dignified Jewish poets and musicians with the title of prophets!

Were not the predictions of the Old Testament exactly descriptive of the events, which have since taken place, respecting Egypt, Tyre, Nineveh, Babylon, Jerusalem, and the Jewish nation? Does not the New Testament contain predictions of " Jerusalem "trodden under foot of the Gentiles ;"" the Jews

* 1 Sam. xvi. 14, 15. xviii. 10.

"scattered through all nations ;" and the superstitions, idolatries, usurpations, and persecutions of that church, which hath forbidden to marry, and commanded to abstain from meat, hath enjoined the worship of angels, and been drunken with the blood of Christians? Were these predictions unmeaning words, or random conjectures?-Even the Romans, from a slight acquaintance with the Jewish Scriptures, had concluded that some wonderful person was about to arise in the world, when Christ was born, as Virgil's eclogue called Pollio, and the famed sybilline books undeniably prove.

6

6

Nothing seems more suited to convince a sensible 'but hesitating inquirer concerning the truth of revelation, than a careful comparison of the twentyeighth chapter of Deuteronomy' with the actual history of the Jewish nation to the present day. This appears capable of effecting every thing that any ⚫ external evidence imaginable can effect; and the ⚫ demonstration thence deduced, which may be continually re-examined, at leisure and with deliberation, seems more convincing than any miracles, which are transient acts, and can only be reviewed in the testimony by which they are authenticated*.'

6

6

I have not entered particularly on the subject of types; because I would not rest the argument of the divine inspiration of Scripture on that ground, but on things more obvious: otherwise, to a considerate mind a very wonderful confirmation of the truth may be derived from them, as well as an illustration of it. But I would here further observe, that there is not a

*Family Bible.