excellently of the use and intent of prophecy, is also willing to reward and encourage any one who bestows his time and pains upon the same subject. The ready and gracious concurrence of the other trustees' was an additional honour and favour, and is deserving of the most grateful acknowledgements. Engaging in this service may indeed have retarded the publi cation of these discourses longer than was intended; but perhaps they may be the better for the delay, since there have been more frequent occasions to review and reconsider them; and time corrects and improves works as well as generous wines, at least affords opportunities of correcting and improving them.

This work hath already been deduced to the prophecies of Daniel and as some time and pains have been employed in explaining some parts of his prophecies, and more will be taken in explaining other parts; it may be proper, before we proceed, to consider the principal objections which have been made to the genuineness of the book of Daniel. It was before asserted, that the first who called in question the truth and authenticity of Daniel's prophecies, was the famous Porphyry, who maintained that they were written about the time of Antiochus Epiphanes: but he was amply refuted by Jerome,2 and hath been and will be more amply refuted still in the course of these dissertations. A modern infidel hath followed Porphyry's example, and his Scheme of Literal Prophecy hath heaped together all that he could find or invent against the book of Daniel, and hath comprised the whole in eleven objections, in order to show that the book was written about the time of the Maccabees: but he likewise hath been refuted to the satisfaction of every intelligent and impartial reader; as indeed there never were any arguments urged in favour of infidelity, but better were always produced in support of truth. The substance of his objections and of the answers to him

3

The trustees appointed by Mr. Boyle himself, were Sir John Rotheram, serjeant at law, Sir Henry Ashurst of London, Knt. and Bart. Thomas Tenison, D. D. afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, and John Evelyn, Esq.-Archbishop Tenison, the survivor of these, nominated and appointed for trustees Richard Earl of Burlington; Dr. Edmund Gibson, then Archdeacon of Surrey, afterwards Lord Bishop of London; Dr. Charles Trimnel, then Bishop of Norwich, afterwards Bishop of Winchester; Dr. White Kennet, then Dean, afterwards Bishop of Peterborough; and Dr. Samuel Bradford, then Rector of St. Mary le Bow, afterwards Bishop of Rochester. The Earl of Burlington, being the only surviving trus

tee, appointed to succeed him in the said trust, William, then Marquis of Hartington, now Duke of Devonshire, Dr. Thomas Sherlock, Lord Bishop of London, Dr. Martin Benson, Lord Bishop of Glocester, Dr. Thomas Secker, Lord Bishop of Oxford, now Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Honourable Richard Arundell, Esq.; of whom Bishop Benson died before, and Mr. Arundell since the appointment of the present lecturer.

2 Hieron. Comment. in Dan.

3 See Collin's Scheme of Literal Pro

phecy, p. 149-157. Bishop Chandler's Vindication, p. 4-157. Sam. Chandler's Vindi cation, p. 3-60.

may with truth and candour be represented in the following

manner.

1. It is objected, that the famous Daniel, mentioned by Ezekiel, could not be the author of the book of Daniel; because Ezekiel, who prophecied in the fifth year of Jehoiakim king of Judah, implies Daniel at that time to be a person in years; whereas the book of Daniel speaks of Daniel at that time as a youth. But here the objector is either ignorantly or wilfully guilty of gross misrepresentation. For Ezekiel did not prophecy in the fifth year of Jehoiakim, nor in the reign of Jehoiakim at all; but he began to prophecy in the "fifth year of king Jehoiachin's captivity," the son and successor of Je hoiakim, (Ezek. i. 2,) that is eleven years after. When Daniel was first carried into captivity, he might be a youth about eighteen but when Ezekiel magnified his piety and wisdom, (chap. xiv. and xxviii.) he was between thirty and forty and several years before that he had interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream, and was advanced, (Dan. ii. 48,) to be "ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon ;" and was therefore very fit and worthy to be celebrated by his fellow-captive Ezekiel.

4

2. His second objection is, that Daniel is represented in the book of Daniel as living chiefly at the courts of the kings of Babylon and Persia; and yet the names of the several kings of his time are all mistaken in the book of Daniel. It is also more suited to a fabulous writer than to a contemporary historian, to talk of Nebuchadnezzar's dwelling with the beasts of the held, and eating grass like oxen, &c. and then returning again to the government of his kingdom. Here are two objections confounded in one. As to the mistake of the kings' names, there are only four kings mentioned in the book of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, and Cyrus. Of the first and last there was never any doubt; and the other two may be rightly named, though they are named differently by the Greek historians, who yet differ as much one from another, as from Daniel. It is well known that the eastern monarchs had several names; and one might be made use of by one writer, another by another. It is plainly begging the question to presume without farther proof, that Daniel was not the oldest of these writers, and had not better opportunities of knowing the names than any of them. As to the case of Nebuchadnezzar, it is related indeed in the prophetic figurative style. It is the interpretation of a dream, and stript of its figures the plain meaning is, that Nebuchadnezzar should be punished with madness, should fancy himself a beast and live like a beast, should be made to eat grass as oxen, be obliged to

4 Prideaux's Connection, part 1, b. 1.

live upon a vegetable diet, but after some time should recover his reason, and resume the government. And what is there fabulous or absurd in this? The dream was not of Daniel's inditing, but was told by Nebuchadnezzar himself. The dream is in a poetic strain, and so likewise is the interpretation, the better to show how the one corresponded with the other, and how the prophecy and event agreed together.

3. He objects that the book of Daniel could not be written by that Daniel who was carried captive in the Babylonish captivity, because it abounds with derivations from the Greek, which language was unknown to the Jews till long after the captivity. The assertion is false that the book of Daniel abounds with derivations from the Greek. There is an affinity only between some few words in the Greek and the Chaldee language and why must they be derived the one from the other? or if derived, why should not the Greeks derive them from the Chaldee, rather than the Chaldees from the Greek? If the words in question could be shown to be of Greek extraction, yet there was some communication between the eastern kingdoms and the colonies of the Greeks settled in Asia Minor before Nebuchadnezzar's time; and so some particular terms might pass from the Greek into the oriental Îanguages. But on the contrary, the words in question are shown to be not of Greek but of eastern derivation; and consequently passed from the east to the Greeks, rather than from the Greeks to the east. Most of the words are names of musical instruments; and the Greeks acknowledge that they received their music from the eastern nations, from whence they themselves originally descended.

5

4. It doth not appear, says the objector, that the book of Daniel was translated into Greek when the other books of the Old Testament were, which are attributed to the Seventy; the present Greek version, inserted in the Septuagint, being taken from Theodotion's translation of the Old Testament made in the second century of Christ. But it doth appear, that there was an ancient Greek version of Daniel, which is attributed to the Seventy, as well as the version of the other books of the Old Testament. It is cited by Clemens Romanus, Justin Martyr, and many of the ancient fathers. It was inserted in Origen, and filled a column of his Hexapla. It is quoted several times by Jerome; and he saith expressly that the version of the Seventy was repudiated by the doctors of the church, and that of Theodotion substituted in the room of it, because it came nearer

5 Καὶ τῷ Διονύσῳ τὴν ̓Ασίαν ὅλην καθιερώ σαντες μέχρι τῆς Ἰνδικῆς, ἐκεῖθεν καὶ τὴν πολ λὴν μουσικὴν μεταφέρουσι. Et cum Baccho totam Asiam ad Indiam usque consecraverint

magnam quoque musicæ partem inde transferunt. Strabo, 1. 10, p. 722. Vide etiam Athenai, 1. 14, p. 625, &c.

6

to the Hebrew verity. This version hath also been lately published from an ancient MS. discovered in the Chighian library at Rome.

5. It is objected that divers matters of fact are spoken of with the clearness of history, to the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, who is very particularly dwelt upon, and that with great and seeming fresh resentment for his barbarous usage of the Jews and this clearness determined Porphyry, and would determine any one to think, that the book was written about the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, the author appearing to be well acquainted with things down to the death of Antiochus, but not farther. But what an argument is this against the book of Daniel? His prophecies are clear, and therefore are no prophecies as if an all-knowing God could not foretell 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 commission 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 ist he spoken of with greater resentment, than other prophets express towards the kings of Assyria and Babylon. All honest men, who love liberty and their country, must speak with indignation of tyrants and oppressors.

6. His sixth objection is, that Daniel is omitted among the prophets recited in Ecclesiasticus, where it seems proper to have mentioned him, as a Jewish prophet-author, had the book under his name been received as canonical, when Ecclesiasticus 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 case. He mentions several who never pretended to be inspired writers, and omits others who really were so. 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 silence 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 wisdom is highly recommended by Ezekiel : and these are sufficient testimonies of his antiquity, without the confirmation of a later writer.

Danielem prophetam juxta Septuaginta interpretes Domini Salvatoris ecclesiæ non legunt, utentes Theodotionis editione quod multum a veritate discordet, et recto judicio repudiatus sit.'

+

Hieron. Præf. in Dan. 'Judicio magistrorum ecclesiæ editio eorum [LXX] repudiata est, et Theodotionis vulgo legitur, quæ et Hebræo, et cæteris translatoribus congruit,' &c. Comm. in Dan. iv. col. 1088.

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