was as certain a proof of the Divine interposition, as the performance of a miracle could be. If he should find, as he certainly would, that many ancient prophecies had been fulfilled in all their circumstances, and that some were fulfilling at this very day, he would not suffer a few seeming or real difficulties to overbalance the weight of this accumulated evidence for the truth of the Bible. Such, I presume to think, would be a proper conduct in all those who are desirous of forming a rational and impartial judgment on the subject of revealed religion. To return.

As to your observation, that the book of Isaiah is (at least in translation) that kind of composition and false taste which is properly called prose run madI have only to remark, that your taste for Hebrew poetry, even judging of it from translation, would be more correct, if you would suffer yourself to be informed on the subject by Bishop Lowth, who tells you in his Prelections, "that a poem translated literally from the Hebrew into any other language, whilst the same forms of the sentences remain, will still retain, even as far as relates to versification, much of its native dignity, and a faint appearance of versification." (Gregory's Transl.) If this is what you mean by prose run mad, your observation may be admitted.

You explain at some length your notion of the misapplication made by St Matthew of the prophecy in Isaiah, "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. That passage has been handled largely and minutely by almost every commentator, and it is too important to be handled superficially by any one; I am not on the present occasion concerned to explain it. It is quoted by you to prove, and it is the only instance you produce, that Isaiah was a lying prophet and an 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 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 Israel

66

ites, 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.

LETTER VI.

AFTER what I conceive to be a great misrepresentation of the character and conduct of Jeremiah, you bring forward an objection, which Spinoza and others before you, have much insisted upon, though it is an objection which neither affects the genuineness nor the authenticity of the book of Jeremiah, any more than the blunder of a bookbinder, in misplacing the sheets of your performance, would lessen its authority. The objection is, that the book of Jeremiah has been put together in a disordered state. It is acknowledged, that the order of time is not every where observed; but the cause of the confusion is not known. Some attribute it to Baruch collecting into one volume all the several prophecies which Jeremiah had written, and neglecting to put them in their proper places; others think that the several parts of the work were at first properly arranged, but that through accident, or the carelessness of transcribers, they were deranged; others contend that there is no confusion; that prophecy differs from history, in not being subject to an accurate observance of time and order. But leaving this matter to be settled by critical discussion, let us come to a matter of greater importance-to your

charge against Jeremiah for his duplicity, and for his false prediction. First, as to his duplicity ::

Jeremiah, on account of his having boldly predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, had been thrust into a miry dungeon by the princes of Judah, who sought his life; there he would have perished, had not one of the eunuchs taken compassion on him, and petitioned king Zedekiah in his favour, saying, "These men (the princes) have done evil in all that they have done to Jeremiah, the prophet (no small testimony this, of the probity of the prophet's character), whom they have cast into the dungeon, and he is like to die for hunger." On this representation, Jeremiah was taken out of the dungeon by an order from the king, who soon afterwards sent privately for him and desired him to conceal nothing from him, binding himself, by an oath, that, whatever might be the nature of his prophecy, he would not put him to death or deliver him into the hands of the princes who sought his life. Jeremiah delivered to him the purpose of God respecting the fate of Jerusalem. The conference being ended, the king, anxious to perform his oath, to preserve the life of the prophet, dismissed him, saying, "Let no man know of these words, and thou shalt not die. But if the princes hear that I have talked with thee, and they come unto thee, and say unto thee, Declare unto us now what thou hast said unto the king, hide it not from us, and we will not put thee to death; also what the king said unto thee: then thou shalt say unto them, I presented my supplication before the king, that he would not cause me to return to Jonathan's house to die there. Then came all the princes unto Jeremiah, and asked him, and he told them according to all these words that the king had commanded.' Thus, you remark, "this man of God, as he is called, could tell a lie, or very strongly prevaricate; for certainly he

did not go to Zedekiah to make his supplication, neither did he make it." It is not said that he told the princes he went to make his supplication, but that he presented it now it is said in the preceding chapter, that he did make the supplication, and it is probable that in this conference he renewed it; but be that as it may, I contend that Jeremiah was not guilty of duplicity, or in more intelligible terms, that he did not violate any law of nature, or of civil society, in what he did on this occasion. He told the truth. in part, to save his life; and he was under no obligation to tell the whole to men who were certainly his enemies, and no good subjects to his king. "In a matter (says Puffendorf) "which I am not obliged to declare to another, if I cannot with safety conceal the whole, I may fairly discover no more than a part.' Was Jere

miah under any obligation to declare to the princes what had passed in his conference with the king? You may as well say that the House of Lords has a right to compel privy counsellors to reveal the king's secrets. The king cannot justly require a privy counsellor to tell a lie for him; but he may require him not to divulge his counsels to those who have no right to know them. Now for the false prediction-I will give the description of it in your own words.

"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 be delivered into his hand; and thine eyes shalt 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

U