Miracles, thus wrought, are a more pofitive and immediate Indication of a divine Concurrence, than either the Completion of ancient Prophecies, or the Prediction of future Events, can poffibly be; That neither the Words of St. Peter, concerning the more fure Word of Pro phecy, nor the Words of Abraham in the Parable, concerning the ftanding Revelation of Mofes and the Prophets, need fo to be interpre ted, as to impair the Worth and Authority of Miracles; and that neitherSt. Paul, in hisDefence before Felix and Agrippa, nor St. Peter, in his Difcourfe before Cornelius, nor any other of the Apostles, in their Endeavours to gain Converts, making life of Prophecies to prove Jefus to be Chrift, and Christianity a divine Institution, have exalted them above measure: fo that the Evidence of Miracles ftands immoveable, and, upon the Comparison, appears to be fuperior; tho' the Evidence of Prophecies, it must be owned, is a good collateral Proof, when ap plied to the Perfon and Event they are to de note, in their natural and most obvious Signifi cation.

t

THE 5th Section treats of the right Application of fome controverted Prophecies; and here the Objection is, "That moft of the Prophecies, "cited from the Old Teftament by the Authors " of the New, do, in their obvious and pri "mary Senfe, relate to Matters quite different. from those which they were produced to Thus it is plain, that Matthew applies a Paffage out of Hofea, [chap. ix. ver. 1.] "another out of Malachi [chap. iv. ver. 5.] and "another out of Ifaiah [chap. vi. ver. 9.] to Purposes quite different from what the Prophets intended them: nor is that Quotation " by

❝ prove.

by St. Luke, out of Deut. xviii. 15, or that, by Chrift himself, out of Daniel ix. 24. &c. "any ways pertinent to the original Significa"tion and Intendment of the Prophecies." To which it is answered, that there are indeed different kinds of Prophecies in the Old Testament, fome that are applicable to Christ, and the Events concerning him, expressly; and others, in a Senfe not feemingly fo obvious to us, but what the Spirit of God might have primarily in view: That our Saviour and his Apoftles in like manner used fometimes a typical, fometimes a parabolical, and fometimes an allufive way of difcourfing with the People, which however did not affect their literal Application of the Prophecies: That St. Matthew, by the Words, that it might be fulfilled, intends no more (according to the Hebrew Phraseology) than hereby was verified, or the Event answered the Prediction, or the like; and, by out of Egypt have I called my Son (which was a common Adage among the Jews) he means no more than a providential Deliverance from fome imminent Danger: That John the Baptift, confidering the great refemblance between him and Elias, in their Temper and Difpofitions, as well as fundry Circumstances of their Lives, might properly enough be called after his Name: That the Blindness and wilful Obftinacy of the Jews, in our Saviour's Time, will justify his applying to them the Character, which Isaiah gives of the People, who lived in his Days: That by Ifaiah's Virgin, who was to conceive and bear a Son, is properly to be understood (as both the Etymology of the Word and the Solemnity of the Introduction fhew) a Conception without the ufe or knowledge of Man: And that the Character

.

of

of the Prophet like unto Mofes, fuits neither with Joshua, nor with a Succeffion of Prophets in the Jewish Church, but in its chief Lineaments can agree with none, but our Bleffed Saviour; and confequently that hitherto the Evangelical Writers have made no Mifapplication of the ancient Prophecies.

THE 6th Section treats of the Book of Daniel and his Prophecy, in Chap, ixth; to which it is objected, That the ancient Daniel, who was

carried away in the Babylonish Captivity, could "not be the Author of it, because he mistakes "the Names of the very Princes, in whofe "Courts he lived, and ufes feveral Expreffons, "which are of Greek Derivation; and because "the Book is omitted in the Verfion of the Se

venty, in the Catalogue of the Prophets reci"ted by Ecclefiafticus, and in the Paraphrafes " of Jonathan ; which could hardly have hap"pened, had it been of Canonical Authority, "and not rather fome fpurious Piece, fuch as "the Song of the three Children, Bell and the

Dragon, &c. forged under that Prophet's "Name, and wrote in an allegorical way, to "give it the air of a Prophecy. But fuppofing "the Book to be genuine, yet is the Applica❝tion of that famous Prophecy in it, grounded "upon a palpable Miftake; fince it is plain, "from the feveral Characters in the Context, "that Daniel's Meffias, who was to be cut off, "was not the Meffias of the Jews, who was

never, to die; and the Destruction, which the "Prophet alludes to, must be what Antiochus, "and not what Titus brought upon that

People." To this it is replied, That the Book of Daniel has all the genuine Marks, both internal and external,together with theTeftimony

of

of all Antiquity, of its being a canonical piece of Scripture: That a fufficient Reason may be given, from the known Custom of their multiplying Titles, why he fometimes calls Affyrian Princes by Names, different from what the Grecian Hiftorians give them, and why he occafionally makes ufe of fome Terms of Art, which might poffibly be of Greek Original: That the Book was fo far from being omitted by the Seventy, that we find their Version of it read publickly in our Saviour's Time, and fo continued, till that of Theodotion, which by some Doctors of the Church was thought better, was substituted in its room: That its being omitted in the Enumeration of the Prophets in Ecclefiafticus, is an Objection of no moment, fince other great Prophets have the like Fate; and its wanting a Chaldee Paraphrafe is the lefs confiderable, because a good part of it is in that Language already; and feveral other facred Writers (fuch ás Ezra, and Nehemiah in particular) according to the Confeffion of the Jews themselves, never had any That the Plainnefs of its Predictions, and Emblematicalnefs of its Stile, are no more than what we fréquently meet with in other Prophets; and that the forging other Books in Daniel's Name, is a plain Indication that fome Writings of his were genuine, and held in great efteem in the Jewish Church at the time, when these spurious Pieces were published: That the Commandment mentioned in this Prophecy does properly denote a royal Decree; that our Saviour (tho' not perfonally prefent) may be faid to go against the Jews; and the Romans, who were the Inftruments of Providence in destroying the City, and profaning the Temple, may No XIII. VOL. III,

E

4

be

be faid to be his Army, or People; and laftly, that Chrift, by his coming into the World, and other Tranfactions of his Life, may be faid to feal up the Prophecy; by his preaching the Gospel, to confirm the Covenant; by the Sacrifice of himself, to put an End to all Oblations; and by the Merit of that Sacrifice, to finish Tranfgreffion, and make an end of Sin..

THE 7th Section treats of the right Application of fome other Prophecies. And here it is objected, "That the plaineft Prophecies we meet with, have no relation at all to Jesus; that "that of Micab [chap. v. ver. 2.] which fpeaks of a Ruler, who is to come out of Bethlehem, "whofe goings forth bave been of old from everlafting, in its primary Senfe, was intended " of Zerobabel, who was defcended from the

Royal Race of David, a Family of five hun"dred Years ftanding; and the 53" Chapter of "Ifaiab, which the Apoftles fo frequently ap

ply to Chrift, is nothing but a prophetical "Defcription of the Sufferings of the Jews, "(one Perfon, according to the prophetick "Stile, being put for a whole Nation) under "the Babylonifh, or fome other Captivity." And to this the Answer is. That the Ruler of Ifrael, in Micah, cannot be understood of Zerobabel, who was born at Babylon, not at Bethlebem, and never had any fupreme Command in Judea; but muft relate to the Perfon of the Meffias, and in him to our bleffed Lord, who, by his eternal Generation, anfwers exactly the Defcription of the Prophet: That the Man of Sorrow and of Grief, in Ifaiah, who had afterward his Portion with the Great, and divided the Spoil with the Strong, cannot with any propriety of Diction, agree with the Nation of the Jews,

in