Chapter VIII: Part 8

The eager trembling curiosity of mankind has ever wished to penetrate into futurity; nor is there perhaps any country, where enthusiasm and knavery have not pretended to satisfy this anxious craving of the human heart. These self-inspired prophets have strove by various arts to supply the want of a divine mission. Sometimes adapting their conjectures to the present situation of things, and to the passions and prejudices of those, for whom their oracles were intended, they have involved themselves in the mystic veil of dark, general, and ambiguous metaphors: and embracing an indefinite space, they have trusted to time and fortune for the accomplishment of their predictions, or to the industry of kind commentators for a favourable interpretation of them. Sometimes they have commenced prophets, and even true prophets at a very easy rate, by delivering the narrative of things already past under the name of some celebrated character of a distant age. As the series of events gradually unfolds itself, those which the supposed ancient could have read only in the book of fate, are transcribed by the more enlightened modern from any common history.

Virgil (the example is innocent and unexceptionable) has left us specimens of both these prophetic arts: I have often wondered at the rashness of critics who have tryed to ascertain the subject of the fourth Eclogue, and to point out the wonderful infant, the restorer of a golden age. That modest and judicious Poet would not surely have risked the smallest part of his reputation, on the miscarriage of a woman, or the precarious life of a child. The picture is richly, nay profusely coloured; but the design is traced with so vague a pencil, that it might adapt itself to any events or to any interpretation; that it might equally suit a literal or an allegorical sense; the son of Pollio, of Antony, or of Augustus; the restoration of liberty, or the tranquillity of the world under one master. Far different are the prophecies delivered to Æneas concerning the fate and fortunes of his descendants. The Trojan hero is indulged with a full and distinct view of the most remote futurity; and the visionary prospect is closed by the mournful apparition of a youth, who would have rivalled the greatest of his ancestors, had not the gods envied _such_ virtues to Rome and to mankind.

From this single remark, we should think ourselves authorized to infer, that Virgil lived in the Augustan age; and that the sixth book was composed during the yet recent grief for the loss of young Marcellus. The Poet indeed meant not to deceive us: like the author of the Persian Letters, or of the Moral Dialogues, his only aim was to convey important truths under the pleasing cover of fiction. But had Virgil seriously pretended, that his sketch of the Roman history was a faithful transcript from an old Sibylline oracle; had Augustus from motives of policy favoured the deceit, and had the Romans adopted it with religious respect; would any man of sense want better evidence of the pious fraud, than the very clearness and precision of the prophecy? The unanimous judgment passed on the yet extant collection of the Sibylline Oracles affords an easy answer to this question. Every critic who has observed that their prophetic light ceases with the reign of Hadrian, has pronounced them without hesitation to be a forgery of that period.

However, as no Christian can dispute the reality of Divine Inspiration, nor any philosopher deny the possibility of it; the suspicion, that a prophecy too clear and precise was composed after the event, though extremely strong, is capable of being removed by still stronger positive evidence. Without insisting on any fanciful or impracticable conditions, we have (I think) a right to expect, that the existence of such a prophecy prior to its accomplishment should be proved, by the knowledge of it being generally diffused amongst an enlightened nation, previous to that period; and its public existence attested, by an unbroken chain of authentic writers. Till such evidence is produced, we may fairly sit down in a calm and well-grounded scepticism.

I have endeavoured to form something like this chain of witnesses in favour of the Book of Daniel; but without being able to carry it higher than the first century of the Christian æra. Josephus seems to expatiate with pleasure on the praises of that great man; whose character, in some instances, he proposed as a model for his own. He celebrates the various merit of Daniel, as a statesman, a prophet, and even as an architect. His prophetic writings (says Josephus) which are still extant, evince his familiar intercourse with the Deity, and his perfect knowledge of futurity. He even possessed some material advantages above the rest of his inspired brethren; not contented with declaring future events, he ascertains the time when they were to happen; and instead of announcing calamities, he is most commonly the messenger of good news. The rise and fall of successive empires so clearly described and so punctually accomplished, ought to convince the disciples of Epicurus, that human affairs, instead of being left to the blind impulsion of chance, are pre-ordained by an all-directing Providence. Nothing can be desired fuller or more honourable for Daniel than this testimony of the Jewish historian. I am only concerned that he did not publish his Antiquities till the ninety-third year of the Christian æra; two hundred and fifty-seven years after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, and more than six centuries later than the time, in which the Prophet is supposed to have flourished.

II. The Book of Daniel is partly of the prophetic and partly of the historic kind. With the account of his visions, the author mixes the memoirs of his life; which lies the more open to our inspection, as it was spent, not like those of the other Prophets in caves and deserts, but in the courts of princes and the great transactions of the world. Three incidents are more particularly mentioned: that he was educated with many other captive youths, among the Eunuchs of Nebuchadnezzar; that he was promoted by that prince to the government of Babylon for the interpretation of a dream; and that, under the reign of Darius the Mede, he was appointed the first of the three ministers or vizirs of the empire; and was soon after exposed to the most imminent danger, by the malice of his enemies, the impudence of his sovereign, and his own pious constancy. To the first of these incidents I am so far from forming any objection, that it seems to me, in the true style of the oriental customs in war and government. But the two last are embarrassed with difficulties, from which I have not been able to extricate myself.

1. Although the most unfrequented paths have sometimes conducted the favourites of fortune to wealth and honours: yet I much doubt, whether any man has been appointed a great officer of state for his skill in divination. In the time of Chardin, the Persian astrologers possessed as much credit at the court of the Sophis, as the Chaldeans could possibly obtain in that of Babylon; and both king and people paid the most implicit obedience to their predictions. Two astrologers constantly attended the Royal Person; nor was any measure adopted, however trifling or however important, without the previous sanction of these ministers of fate; who cost the state annually above four millions of French money. But notwithstanding they were thus highly favoured and respected, they were still confined within their own province; nor is there any instance of the Sovereign chusing his ministers, his generals, or his judges, amongst that class of men; the best qualified, as it should seem, for action, since they were the best acquainted with the consequences of their actions. The common sense of mankind has constantly preferred the mere human accomplishments of courage, capacity, and experience. The Roman augurs indeed presided in the senate, and led forth the armies of the common-wealth; but in this single exception, the sacerdotal was grafted on the political character. The first citizens, after rising gradually through the honours, and great offices of their country, were at length admitted to play the most powerful engine of the aristocracy.

2. I am disposed to believe that the subsequent merit of Daniel might justify the Monarch’s caprice. I will allow, (on the credit of the story of Susanna and the elders) that there never was a Judge of hands more clean, or of a more discerning eye; and that, in his ministerial capacity, he was ever attentive to the public interest, and careless of his own. I cannot deny, that Daniel, as a favourite, as a stranger, and as an honest man, must have the whole court of Babylon for his enemies; and am very sensible, that in the administration of a great empire, the purest virtue and the most shining abilities may afford room for misrepresentation and calumny. How often must the great Sully have yielded to those arts of courts, had he not possessed a sure resource in the sound understanding and generous heart of his friend and master! The situation of the Jewish and of the Huguenot Minister were somewhat similar. Both were issued from an oppressed race of obstinate sectaries; and it might be deemed a very artful contrivance to invent some test, which must force them to relinquish their place, or their principles; to forfeit the favour of their prince, or the confidence of their party. Thus far the comparison is tolerably exact. But the French ministers were well assured that the fate and innocence of Sully would be left to the common order of providence. The courtiers of Darius must apprehend, that the piety of Daniel would be asserted by a miraculous interposition. The people of Babylon, not many years before, had beheld the wonderful deliverance of Daniel’s friends from the fiery furnace; and it would have been a strange project for these crafty statesmen, a second time to provoke the jealous God of Israel, to exalt the glory of their enemy, and to draw down destruction on their own heads.

This age indeed, to whom the gift of miracles has been refused, is apt to wonder at the indifference with which they were received by the ancient world. Instead of the instant terror, lasting conviction, and implicit obedience, we might rationally expect; the Jews as well as the Gentiles conducted themselves, as if they neither remembered nor believed the miracles to which they were witnesses. Although the hand of the Almighty was almost perpetually employed in tracing out those divine characters; they were no sooner formed, than they were obliterated from the minds of men. It may possibly be alledged, that faith was distracted by the multiplicity of false as well as of genuine miracles; whilst even the patrimony of the Lord was encompassed by rival deities.

——Who from the pit of hell,
Roaming to seek their prey on earth, durst fix
Their seats long after next the seat of God;
Their altars by his altar; Gods ador’d
Among the nations round; and durst abide
Jehovah thund’ring out of Sion, thron’d
Betwixt the Cherubim——

But this solution is more proper, I am afraid, to aggravate than to alleviate the pressure of the difficulty. Counterfeit money may pass current with the true; since both are coined by human hands and human industry: But I have always considered Salmoneus imitating Jove’s thunder by rattling with a brazen chariot over a brazen bridge, as the most contemptible legend in the whole compass of the Grecian mythology.

3. The law of the Medes and Persians is represented as a constitutional sanction, which put it out of Darius’s power to revoke his rash edict. Such legal restraints are the natural offspring of free governments; but ill suit with the genius of Asiatic despotism. From the inaccessible solitude of a seven-fold palace the king of the Medes disposed without controul of the lives and property of his subjects: nor does there exist a more dreadful act of authority, than the retaliation inflicted by Darius on Daniel’s enemies; who, to the number of a hundred and twenty, were cast, with their wives and children, into the den of lions. If the Persians enjoyed any degree of freedom among their mountains, they became at the same time slaves and conquerors; and a formal determination of their judges stands recorded by Herodotus. “That it was lawful for the king to do whatever he pleased. There are indeed some instances, where a wise despot will check himself, and a foolish one will find himself checked by the nature of things. Such institutions as are derived from Divine authority, ancient custom, or general opinion, cannot be shaken without endangering the foundations of his own throne. But it would be truly unaccountable, that his cooler reason should not be permitted to correct the passion or surprize of a moment; and that the occasional declarations of his pleasure should not be annihilated by the same authority, which produced them. May I not assert, that the Greek writers who have so copiously treated of the affairs of Persia, have not left us the smallest vestige of a restraint, equally injurious to the monarch, and prejudicial to the people?”

4. The edict of Darius, “that during thirty days, whosoever should ask any petition of either god or man, save only of the king, should be cast into the den of lions,” implied an almost total suspension of religious worship; which consists much more in prayer than in thanksgiving. Such an extraordinary interdict, by depriving the people of the comforts, and the priests of the profits of religion, must have diffused a general discontent throughout his empire; which might easily have been inflamed into sedition and civil war. With what colours could the ministers of Darius gloss over a measure big with every mischief, and destitute of the smallest advantage? In what language could they address themselves to the reason, or even to the passions of their Sovereign; who is described to be of an advanced age, and a lover of justice and moderation? But is there any character, which, with the utmost latitude of supposition, may account for this edict? An irreligious prince may be indiscreet enough to treat with ridicule whatever is held sacred by his subjects; but he will entertain too great a contempt both for the people, and for popular superstition, ever to think of forcibly separating them from each other. The bigot is actuated by a warmer principle than the infidel; but his attachment to his own mode of worship rises in proportion to his hatred of all others. Had Darius, as a disciple of Zoroaster, shut up the temples of the idolaters, he would have directed the fires of the Magi to have blazed with redoubled ardour. Even those tyrants who, destitute of human virtues, have aspired to divine honours, have grafted their pretensions on the established religions. To be seated between Castor and Pollux, to obtain the embraces of the Moon, to confer with Jupiter of the Capitol, and to place his image in the temple of Jerusalem, would have gratified the wildest ambition of Caligula. But to suspend during thirty days the most universal propensity of mankind, is a strain of wanton despotism unparalleled in the history of the world; for the interdicts of the Popes were of a quite different nature. They were not the arbitrary prohibitions of a temporal monarch; but a chastisement, inflicted by the vicegerent of Christ, who excluded the offenders from the benefits of Christianity, till they had satisfied the Deity, offended in the person of his ministers.

5. There yet remains a stronger, or at least a more palpable objection, against the veracity of the author of the book of Daniel: “The high probability that Darius the Mede never existed; or, what amounts to the same, that no prince of that name or nation reigned at Babylon, between the time of Nebuchadnezzar and that of Cyrus.” It would be to little purpose to expatiate on the uncertainty of ancient history, and the careless vanity of the Greek writers. The outlines of the history of Babylon are known to us with uncommon precision. The Canon of Ptolemy contains the stories of its kings, deduced from authentic records, attested by astronomical observations, and confirmed by the fragments of Berosus, which are still extant in Josephus. Berosus describes the conquests and buildings of Nebuchadnezzar, and only omits to mention the metamorphosis of that monarch into an ox. His three immediate successors, were of his own family; the fourth, Nabonadius, was a Babylonian raised to the throne by the conspirators who murdered his predecessor; and cast down from it by the victorious arms of Cyrus king of Persia. In this close series of the Babylonian and Persian dynasties, there cannot be found the smallest interval, which will admit a Median prince.

Of the various expedients devised to elude this difficulty, there is one only which can deserve our notice; both as the most tolerable in itself, and as having been embraced by the chronologists of the most distinguished merit and reputation; by Usher, Prideaux, Sir Isaac Newton, &c. In their extreme distress, the Cyaxares of Xenophon offered himself to their imagination, as the properest person to support the character of Darius the Mede. For this purpose, they have supposed that he reigned two years over the Babylonian empire; after it had been subdued by the arms of Cyrus, his nephew and his lieutenant. Such is their hypothesis, which falls to the ground if the Cyropædia is a romance; and is overthrown by it, should that noble performance be received as a genuine history.

1. Without insisting on the opinion of Plato and Tully, I would rather appeal to your own feelings; as I cannot doubt your familiar acquaintance with the writings of the Attic Bee. Compare the Anabasis with the Cyropædia; and _feel_ the difference between truth and fiction; between the lively and copious variety of the one, and the elegant poverty of the other. A few general incidents, thinly scattered through a diffuse work, and destitute of any notes of geography or chronology, compose the life of Cyrus; which seems lost in a multitude of speeches, councils, reflections, and familiar episodes. Xenophon was a philosopher and a soldier; and if we unravel with any care the fine texture of the Cyropædia, we shall discover in every thread the Spartan discipline and the philosophy of Socrates. The only part which has the air of real history, is the judicious digression, where Xenophon compares the degeneracy of the modern Persians with the wise institutions of their founder. He possessed the best opportunities of examining both the one and the other, whilst he served in the camp of the younger Cyrus, and traversed, with the immortal ten thousand, the greatest part of the provinces of Artaxerxes. The first Cyrus was confessedly a great man. The conquest of Asia is a sufficient testimony of his abilities; and the name of Father given him by the Persians after his death, must stand as the surest evidence of his virtues. But the hero of the Cyropædia is drawn as a _perfect character_; a monster as fabulous, and less interesting than those of Ariosto. His wise councils are never, in a single instance, seduced by passion, misled by error, or disappointed by accident. Xenophon labours to establish the empire of prudence; his countryman Herodotus had entertained himself with displaying the tyranny of fortune; and both writers, whilst they inculcate the moral precept, seem alike, though by opposite paths, to deviate from historic truth.

2. But if the Cyropædia be admitted as a genuine history, Darius the Mede is still excluded from the throne of Babylon, since Cyaxares himself never ascended it. When the Cyrus of Xenophon besieged that great city, he had gradually shaken off all dependance on his uncle, and assumed to himself the supreme command, and exclusive advantages of the war. The strength of his army consisted of seventy thousand natural Persians, solely attached to their hereditary prince, from every motive of duty, gratitude, and interest. He was followed by a various train of nations, allies and subjects, all subdued by his arms and policy. About forty thousand Medes, who served under his banners, had long since been taught to despise the weakness, and to disobey the commands of their sovereign. After the conquest, Cyrus was solemnly inaugurated king of Babylon, with every circumstance of pomp and greatness, which could dazzle the eyes of the multitude. Some time afterwards he visited his uncle at Ecbatana, presented him with rich gifts, the spoils of Asia, accepted his only daughter in marriage, and very politely told the King of the Medes, that he had set apart for him, one of the finest palaces of Babylon; that whenever he should chuse to come to that city, he might find himself, _as if he were still in his own dominions_.

If these observations are founded in truth and nature; it will follow, that the author of the Book of Daniel has entertained us with incredible stories, which happened under an imaginary monarch. So much error and so much fiction are incompatible with an inspired, or even with a contemporary, writer. But if the prophecies were framed three or four centuries after the Prophet’s death, it was much easier for the counterfeit Daniel to _foretel_ great and recent events, than to compose an accurate history or probable romance of a dark and remote period.

The question is curious in itself, important in its consequences, and in every light worthy the attention of a critical divine. This consideration justifies the freedom of my address, and the hopes I still entertain, that you may be able and willing to dispell the mist, that hangs, either over my eyes, or over the subject itself. On my side, I can only promise, that whatever you shall think proper to communicate, shall be received with the candor which I owe to myself, and with the deference, so justly due to your name and abilities,

I am, Sir,
with great esteem,
your obedient humble servant,
——

P.S. You will be pleased, Sir, to address your answer _To Daniel Freeman, Esq. at the Cocoa Tree, Pall Mall_: but if you have any scruple of engaging with a mask, I am ready, by the same channel, to disclose my real name and place of abode; and to pledge myself for the same _discretion_, which, in my turn, I shall have a right to expect.

* * * * *

I had neither leisure nor inclination to enter into controversy with this stranger (for which there was the less occasion, as he had disputed no principle or opinion advanced by me in the Sermons); but, as I knew, whoever he was, that he would complain, or rather _boast_, of being wholly unnoticed by me, I sent him this answer.

ANSWER TO THE FOREGOING LETTER.

_Thurcaston, August 29, 1772._

SIR,

Your very elegant letter on the antiquity and authenticity of the Book of Daniel (just now received) finds me here, if not without leisure, yet without books, and therefore in no condition to enter far into the depths of this controversy; which indeed is the less necessary, as every thing, that relates to the subject, will come, of course, to be considered by my learned successors in the new Lecture. For, as the prophecies of Daniel make an important link in _that chain, which_, as you say, _has been let down from heaven to earth_ (but not by the Author of the late Sermons, who brought into view only what he had found, not invented) the grounds, on which their authority rests, will, without doubt, be carefully examined, and, as I suppose, firmly established.

But, in the mean time, and to make at least some small return for the civility of your address to me, I beg leave to trouble you with two or three short remarks, such as occur to me, on the sudden, in reading your letter.

Your main difficulties are these two: 1. That the author of the Book of Daniel is too clear for a prophet; as appears from his prediction of the Persian and Macedonian affairs: And 2. too fabulous for a contemporary historian; as is evident, you suppose, from his mistakes, chiefly, I think, in the vith chapter.

1. The first of these difficulties is an extraordinary one. For why may not prophecy, if the Inspirer think fit, be as clear as history? Scriptural prophecy, whence your idea of its obscurity is taken, is _occasionally_ thus clear, I mean after the event: And Daniel’s prophecy of the revolutions in the Grecian empire would have been obscure enough to Porphyry himself, before it.

But your opinion, after all, when you come to explain yourself, really is, as one should expect, that, as a prophet, Daniel is not clear enough: for you enforce the old objection of Porphyry by observing, That, where a pretended prophecy is clear to a certain point of time, and afterwards obscure and shadowy, there common sense leads one to conclude that the author of it is an impostor.

This reasoning is plausible, but not conclusive, unless it be taken for granted that a prophecy must, in all its parts, be equally clear and precise: whereas, on the supposition of real inspiration, it may be fit, I mean it may suit with the views of the Inspirer, to predict some things with more perspicuity, and in terms more obviously and directly applicable to the events in which they are fulfilled, than others. But, further, this reasoning, whatever force it may have, has no place here; at least, you evidently beg the question when you urge it; because the persons, you dispute against, maintain, That the subsequent prophecies of Daniel are equally distinct with the preceding ones concerning the Persian and Macedonian empires, at least so much of them as they take to have been fulfilled, and that, to judge of the rest, we must wait for the completion of them.

However, you admit that the suspicion arising from the _clearest_ prophecy may be removed by direct positive evidence that it was composed before the event. But then you carry your notions of that evidence very far, when you require “that the existence of such a prophecy prior to the accomplishment should be proved by the knowledge of it being generally diffused amongst an enlightened nation, previous to that period, and its public existence attested by an unbroken chain of authentic writers.”

What you here claim as a matter of _right_, is, without question, very desirable, but should, I think, be accepted, if it be given at all, as a matter of courtesy. For what you describe is the utmost evidence that the case admits: but what right have we, in this or any other subject whether of natural or revealed religion, to the utmost evidence? Is it not enough that the evidence be sufficient to induce a reasonable assent? And is not that assent reasonable, which is paid to real evidence, though of an inferior kind, when uncontrouled by any greater? And such evidence we clearly have for the authenticity of the book of Daniel, in the reception of it, by the Jewish nation, down to the time of Jesus, whose appeal to it supposes and implies that reception to have been constant and general: Not to observe that the testimony of Jesus is further supported by all the considerations that are alledged for his own divine character. To this evidence, which is positive so far as it goes, you have nothing to oppose, but surmise and conjecture, that is, nothing that deserves to be called evidence. But I doubt, Sir, you take for granted, that the claim of inspiration is never to be allowed, so long as there is a possibility of supposing that it was not given.

II. In the second division of your Letter, which is longer and more laboured than the first, you endeavour to shew that the _historical_ part of the book of Daniel, chiefly that of the sixth chapter, is false and fabulous, and, as such, confutes and overturns the _prophetical_. What you say on this head is contained under _five_ articles.

1. You think it strange that Daniel, or any other man, should be advanced to a great office of state, _for his skill in divination_.

But here, first, you forget that Joseph was thus advanced, and for the same reason: Or, if you object to this instance, what should hinder the advancement either of Joseph or Daniel (when their skill in divination had once brought them into the notice and favour of their sovereign) for what you call _mere human accomplishments_? For such assuredly both these great men possessed, if we may believe the plain part of their story, which asserts of Joseph, and indeed proves, that he was, in no common degree, _discreet and wise_; and of Daniel, that _an excellent spirit was found in him_, nay that he had _knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom_, over and above his _understanding in all visions and dreams_. In short, Sir, though princes of old might not make it a rule to chuse their ministers out of their soothsayers, yet neither would their being soothsayers, if they were otherwise well accomplished, prevent them from being ministers: Just as in modern times, though churchmen have not often, I will suppose, been made officers of state, even by bigotted princes, because they were churchmen, yet neither have they been always set aside from serving in those stations, when they have been found eminently qualified for them.

2. Your next exception is, That a combination could scarce have been formed in the court of Babylon against the favourite minister (though such factions are common in other courts) because the courtiers of Darius _must have apprehended that the piety of Daniel would be asserted by a miraculous interposition_; of which they had seen a striking instance. And here, Sir, you expatiate with a little too much complacency on the strange indifference which the ancient world shewed to the gift of miracles. You do not, I dare say, expect a serious answer to this charge; Or, if you do, it may be enough to observe, what I am sure your own reading and experience must have rendered very familiar to you, that the strongest belief or conviction of the mind perpetually gives way to the inflamed selfish passions; and that, when men have any scheme of interest or revenge much at heart, they are not restrained from pursuing it, though the scaffold and the axe stand before them in full view, and have perhaps been streaming but the day before with the blood of other state-criminals. I ask not, whether miracles have ever _actually_ existed, but whether you do not think that multitudes have been firmly _persuaded_ of their existence: And their indifference about them is a fact which I readily concede to you.

3. Your third criticism is directed against what is said of _the law of the Medes and Persians, that it altereth not_; where I find nothing to admire, but the extreme rigour of Asiatic despotism. For I consider this irrevocability of the law, when once promulgated by the Sovereign, not as contrived to be a check on his will, but rather to shew the irresistible and fatal course of it. And this idea was so much cherished by the despots of Persia, that, rather than revoke the iniquitous law, obtained by surprize, for exterminating the Jews, Ahasuerus took the part, as we read in the book of Esther, (and as Baron Montesquieu, I remember, observes) to permit the Jews to defend themselves against the execution of it. Whence we see how consistent this law is with the determination of the Judges, quoted by you from Herodotus—“That it was lawful for the King to do whatever he _pleased_”—for we understand, that he did not please, that his law, when once declared by him, should be altered.

You add, under this head, “May I not assert, that the Greek writers, who have so copiously treated of the affairs of Persia, have not left us the smallest vestige of a restraint, equally injurious to the monarch, and prejudicial to the people?” I have not the Greek writers by me to consult; but a common book I chance to have at hand, refers me to one such vestige in a very eminent Greek Historian, Diodorus Siculus. Lowth’s Comm. in loc.

4. A fourth objection to the historic truth of the book of Daniel is taken, with more plausibility, from the matter of this law, which, as you truly observe, was very strange for the King’s councillors to advise, and for any despot whatsoever to enact.

But 1. I a little question whether prayer was so constant and considerable a part of Pagan worship, as is supposed; and, if it was not, the prejudices of the people would not be so much shocked by this interdict, as we are ready to think. Daniel indeed prayed three times a day: but the idolaters might content themselves with praying now and then at a stated solemnity. It is clear that when you speak of _depriving men of the comforts, and the priests of the profits of religion_, you have Christian and even modern principles and manners in your eye: perhaps, in the _comforts_, you represented to yourself a company of poor inflamed Huguenots under persecution; and, in the _profits_, the lucrative trade of Popish masses. But, be this as it may, it should be considered, 2. that this law could not, in the nature of the thing, suppress all prayer, if the people had any great propensity to it. It could not suppress _mental_ prayer: it could not even suppress _bodily worship_, if performed, as it easily might be, in the night, or in secret. Daniel, it was well known, was used to pray in open day-light, and in a place exposed to inspection from his usual manner of praying; which manner, it was easily concluded, so zealous a votary, as he was, would not change or discontinue, on account of the edict. Lastly, though the edict passed for thirty days, to make sure work, yet there was no doubt but the end proposed would be soon accomplished, and then it was not likely that much care would be taken about the observance of it.

All this put together, I can very well conceive that extreme envy and malice in the courtiers might suggest the idea of such a law, and that an impotent despot might be flattered by it. Certainly, if what we read in the third chapter be admitted, That _one_ of these despots required all people, nations, and languages to worship his image on pain of death, there is no great wonder that _another_ of them should demand the exclusive worship of himself, for a month[255]; nay perhaps he might think himself civil, and even bounteous to his gods, when he left them a share of the other eleven. For, as to the presumption—

——Nihil est quod credere de se
Non possit, cui laudatur Diis æqua potestas.

5. A fifth, and what you seem to think the strongest objection to the credit of the book of Daniel, is, “That no such person, as Darius the Mede, is to be found in the succession of the Babylonish princes [You mean, as given in Ptolemy’s Canon and the Greek writers] between the time of Nebuchadnezzar and that of Cyrus.”

In saying this, you do not forget, nor disown, what our ablest chronologers have said on the subject: But then you object, that Xenophon’s Cyaxares has been made, (to serve a turn) to personate Darius the Mede, and yet that Xenophon’s book, whether it be a romance, or a true history, overturns the use which they have made of this hypothesis.

1. I permit myself, perhaps, to be too much flattered by your civility in referring me to my own taste, rather than to the authority of Cicero: But the truth is, I am much disposed to agree with you, “that, if we unravel with any care the fine texture of the Cyropædia, we shall discover in every thread the Spartan discipline and the philosophy of Socrates.” But then, as the judicious author chose to make so recent a story as that of Cyrus, and so well known, the vehicle of his political and moral instructions, he would be sure to keep up to the _truth_ of the story, as far as might be; especially in the leading facts, and in the principal persons, as we may say, of the drama. This obvious rule of decorum such a writer, as Xenophon, could not fail to observe: And therefore, on the supposition that his Cyropædia is a romance, I should conclude certainly that the outline of it was genuine history.

But, 2. if it be so, you conclude that there is no ground for thinking that Darius the Mede ever reigned at Babylon, because Cyaxares himself never reigned there.

Now, on the idea of Xenophon’s book being a romance, there might be good reason for the author’s taking no notice of the short reign of Cyaxares; which would break the unity of his work, and divert the reader’s attention too much from the hero of it: while yet the omission could hardly seem to violate historic truth, since the lustre of his hero’s fame, and the real power which, out of question, he reserved to himself, would make us easily forget or overlook Cyaxares. But, as to the _fact_, it seems no way incredible, that Cyrus should concede to his royal ally, his uncle, and his father-in-law (for he was all these) the _nominal_ possession of the sovereignty—or that he should _share_ the sovereignty with him—or, at least, that he should leave the _administration_, as we say, in his hands at Babylon, while he himself was prosecuting his other conquests at a distance. Any of these things is supposable enough; and I would rather admit any of them, than reject the express, the repeated, the circumstantial testimony of a not confessedly fabulous historian.

After all, Sir, I doubt, I should forfeit your good opinion, if I did not acknowledge that some, at least, of the circumstances, which you have pointed out, are such as one should hardly expect at first sight. But then such is the condition of things in this world; and what is _true_ in human life is not always, I had almost said, not often, that which was to be previously expected: whence, an indifferent romance is, they say, more _probable_ than the best history. But should any or all of these circumstances convince you perfectly that some degree of error or fiction is to be found in the book of Daniel, it would be too precipitate to conclude that therefore the whole book was of no authority. For, at most, you could but infer, that the historical part, in which those circumstances are observed, namely the sixth chapter, is not genuine: Just as hath been adjudged, you know, of some other pieces, which formerly made a part of the book of Daniel. For it is not with these collections, which go under the name of the prophets, as with some regularly connected system, where a charge of falsehood, if made good against one part of it, shakes the credit of the whole. Fictitious histories may have been joined with true prophecies, when all that bore the name of the same person, or any way related to him, came to be put together in the same volume: But the detection of such misalliance could not affect the prophecies, certainly not those of Daniel, which respect _the latter times_; for these have an intrinsic evidence in themselves, and assert their own authenticity in proportion as we see, or have reason to admit, the accomplishment of them.

And now, Sir, I have only to commit these hasty reflections to your candour; a virtue, which cannot be separated from the love of truth, and of which I observe many traces in your agreeable letter. And if you would indulge this quality still further, so as to conceive the possibility of that being _true and reasonable_, in matters of religion, which may seem strange, or, to so lively a fancy as your’s, even ridiculous, you would not hurt the credit of your excellent understanding, and would thus remove one, perhaps a principal, occasion of _those mists which_, as you complain, _hang over these nice and difficult subjects_.

I am, with true respect,
Sir, &c.
R. H.

* * * * *

I should not perhaps have thought it worth while to print either of these Letters, if a noble person had not made it necessary for me to give the _former_ to the publick, by doing this honour (though without my leave or knowledge) to the _latter_. By which means, however, we are now at length informed (after the secret had been kept for twice twelve years) that the anonymous Letter-writer was Edward Gibbon, Esq. afterwards the well-known author of “The History of the _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_[256].”

Of Mr. Gibbon’s Letter to me, I have no more to say: And of his _History_, only what may be expressed in few words.

It shews him, without doubt, to have possessed parts, industry, and learning; each in a degree that might have entitled him to a respectable place among the compilers of ancient history. But these talents were disgraced, and the fruit of them blasted, by a FALSE TASTE OF COMPOSITION: that is, by _a raised, laboured, ostentatious style_; effort in writing being mistaken, as it commonly is, for energy—by _a perpetual affectation of wit, irony, and satire_; generally misapplied; and always out of place, being wholly unsuited to the historic character—and, what is worse, by a _free-thinking libertine spirit_; which spares neither morals nor religion; and must make every honest man regard him as a bad citizen, as well as writer.

These miscarriages may, all of them, be traced up to one common cause, an EXCESSIVE VANITY.

Mr. Gibbon survived, but a short time, his favourite work. Yet he lived long enough to know that the most and best of his readers were much unsatisfied with him. And a few years more may, not improbably, leave him without one admirer.—Such is the fate of those, who will write themselves into fame, in defiance of all the principles of true taste, and of true wisdom!

R. W.

_Hartlebury Castle, Nov. 18, 1796._

THE END OF THE FIFTH VOLUME.

Printed by J. Nichols and Son, Red Lion Passage, Fleet-Street, London.

Errata:

P. 365, l. 9. for _two_ read _too_.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] This noble and eminent person was the second son of the Lord Chancellor Hardwicke. He had been, for many years, in the first reputation at the Bar; and having passed through the offices of Sollicitor and Attorney General, was, himself, made Lord Chancellor in January 1770, but died soon after his appointment to that high dignity—_Luctuosum hoc suis; acerbum patriæ; grave bonis omnibus_.

[2] The Society _have_ given leave that this Lecture be preached in their Chapel, and on the days specified.

[3] Thus Celsus represents the Jews—μηδὲν πώποτε ἀξιόλογον πράξαντας, οὔτ’ ἐν λόγῳ, οὔτ’ ἐν ἀριθμῷ αὐτούς ποτε γεγενημένους. ORIG. contra CELS. _l._ iv. _p._ 181. _ed. Spenc. Cantab. 1677_. And in _p._ 175, he represents it as the highest absurdity in such _reptiles_ to pretend that their insignificant concerns were the objects of divine prediction, and that the supreme Governor of the world, who had so many greater things upon his hands, should be only solicitous, as it were, to keep up a perpetual intercourse with them. See the whole passage, which the philosopher seems to have taken a pleasure to work up with much oratorical amplification.—Julian, too, was much pleased with this foolish objection.

[4] _Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the dust of the balance._ Isaiah xl. 15.

[5] Si dii sint, est divinatio.

[6] Si divinatio sit, dii sunt.

[7] These objections were long since urged by Celsus, who speaks of the Jewish and Christian oracles, as _fanatical, uncertain, and obscure_, _l._ vii. _p._ 338—ἄγνωστα, καὶ πάροιϛρα, καὶ πάντῃ ἄδηλα, ὧν τὸ μὲν γνῶμα οὐδεὶς ἂν ἔχων νοῦν εὑρεῖν δύναιτο, ἀσαφῆ γὰρ καὶ τὸ μηδέν. as _applicable to other subjects besides those to which they were referred_—τὰς εἰς τὰ περὶ τούτου ἀναφερομένας προφητείας δύνασθαι καὶ ἄλλοις ἐφαρμόζειν πράγμασι. _l._ i. _p._ 39.—nay, _as much more applicable to others, than to Jesus_—μυρίοις ἄλλοις ἐφαρμοσθῆναι δύνασθαι πολὺ πιθανώτερον τὰ προφητικὰ ἢ τῷ Ἰησοῦ. _l._ ii. _p._ 78.

[8] Utrum tandem, per deos atque homines, magis verisimile est, _vesanum remigem_, aut aliquem nostrûm, qui ibi tum eramus, _me, Catonem, Varronem, Coponium_ ipsum, concilia deorum immortalium perspicere potuisse? _Cic. Div._ l. ii. c. 55.

[9] Illud etiam requiro, cur, si deus ista visa nobis providendi causâ dat, non _vigilantibus_ potius dat quàm _dormientibus_? l. ii. c. 61.

[10] Jam verò quid opus est _circuitione et amfractu_, ut sit utendum interpretibus somniorum, potiùs quàm _directo_? _Ibid._

[11]

Οὐκ οἶδ’. ἐφ’ οἷς γὰρ μὴ φρονῶ, σιλᾷν φιλῶ.
Soph. Oedip. Tyran. ver. 577.

[12] Quod est enim criminis genus, aut rei esse alicujus ignarum, aut ipsum, quod nescias, sine aliquâ profiteri dissimulatione nescire? aut uter magis videtur irrisione esse dignissimus vobis, qui sibi scientiam nullam tenebrosæ rei alicujus assumit, an ille, qui retur se ex se apertissimè scire id, quod humanam transiliat notionem, et quod sit cæcis obscuritatibus involutum? _Arnobius_, _adv. Gen._ l. ii.

[13] 1 Cor. ii. 11.

[14] St. Matthew, vi. 22.

[15] Μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰησοῦ—_the testimony of, or concerning Jesus_, not—_the testimony given by Jesus_.

The _former_ appears to be the sense, for the following reasons.

1. The point asserted, is, “That the Angel, who had delivered this illustrious prophecy, was _the fellow-servant of John_, and not of John only, but _of those who have the testimony of Jesus_.” The proof is—_for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus_—i. e. the end of prophecy is to bear testimony, or, to do honour, to Jesus; therefore, I, says the Angel, who am endowed with this prophetic spirit, am but employed, as thou art; who, in thy character of Apostle or Evangelist, hast received the same general commission, namely, to bear testimony, or to do honour, to Jesus. See Acts x. 42. We are, therefore, _fellow-servants_, or joint labourers in the same cause. All this is clear and well-reasoned. But, now, take the words—_the testimony of Jesus_—in the sense of—_the testimony given by Jesus_—and how does the Angel’s having _the spirit of prophecy_, prove him to be _a fellow-servant of John_? for the reason assigned will then stand thus—_for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony which Jesus gives of himself_. The inference is, that the Angel was a true prophet. Again: how is the Angel proved, in this way, to be _the fellow-servant of those who have the testimony of Jesus_? Why, thus; the Angel had the spirit of prophecy, and prophecy was the gift of Christ; therefore he was the fellow-servant of those, who had the same gift, i. e. who were prophets. Without doubt. But why so strange a way of proving so plain a point? It had been enough to say—_I am a prophet, as others are_. Still, what was this to St. John? who, in this place, is not sustaining the character of a prophet; for the worship he was inclined to pay the Angel was on account of the Angel’s being, what himself was not, _a prophet_.

Turn it which way you will, the reasoning is frivolous, or inconsequent. I conclude therefore, that not _this_, but the _other_ interpretation gives the true sense of—_the testimony of Jesus_.

2. To speak of _prophecy_ under the idea of _a testimony to, or concerning Jesus_, is conforming to the true scriptural idea of that gift. Thus we are told that—_to him_ [i. e. to Jesus] _give all the prophets witness_—τούτῳ πάντες προφῆται μαρτυροῦσιν, Acts x. 43. _Prophecy_, therefore, being the thing here spoken of, is rightly called the testimony, or witness to, or concerning Jesus.

3. Lastly, the construction is fully justified, 1. by observing that the genitive case [as here Ἰησοῦ] is frequently used in scripture, not actively, but passively. See a variety of instances in Mede, p. 626, where he explains διδασκαλίαι δαιμονίων: And 2. by referring the reader to the following passage of St. Paul, where the very expression of the text is so used—μὴ οὖν ἐπαισχυνθῇς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν—clearly, _be not ashamed of bearing testimony to our Lord_, 2 Tim. i. 8.—and to Rev. i. 9. where the Apostle tells us, he was in the isle of Patmos—διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριϛοῦ—_on account of his having been faithful in preaching the word of God, and in bearing testimony to Jesus Christ_—and still more plainly, if possible, and indubitably, by referring him to Rev. xii. 17. where, speaking of the Dragon, he says, he went in wrath to make war on those, _which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ_—τῶν τηρούντων τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριϛοῦ: for these objects of the Dragon’s fury are properly, THE WITNESSES, those faithful servants of truth, who suffered for the courageous and persevering _testimony_, they gave, in evil times, to Jesus Christ, and to his pure religion.

On the whole, there cannot be the least doubt of the interpretation here given of this famous text. The _expression_ fairly admits this interpretation; and (what the true critic will regard most) the _scope_ of the place, or pertinence of the reasoning, addressed to St. John, admits no other.

[16] John v. 39.

[17] Luke xxiv. 27.

[18] Acts iii. 18.

[19] Acts iii. 24. See also Acts x. 43. 1 Pet. i. 10.

[20] See especially the Epistles to the _Hebrews_, and _Galatians_.

[21] Acts xxvi. 22. See farther, Acts xxviii. 23. Rom. iii. 21. Eph. ii. 19, &c.

[22] Rev. x. 7.

[23] DR. MIDDLETON’S _Works_, vol. III. p. 137. London, 1752, 4to.

[24] Though by _Moses_, is here meant, not the prophecies of Moses only, but the _books_ of Moses, containing those former prophecies, which, as St. Peter says, had been delivered, _since the world began_.

[25] DR. MIDDLETON, p. 139.

[26] D. L. Vol. V. p. 288. Lond. 1765.

[27] Gal. iii. 24.—ὁ νόμος παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριϛόν—

[28] Coloss. ii. 17. Hence, St. Austin affirms roundly, “That, to such as consider the genius of the revealed system, the Old Testament must appear a continued prophecy of the New.”—_Vetus Testamentum_, rectè _sentientibus_, PROPHETIA _est Novi Testamenti_ [_contr. Faustum_, l. xv.]: and St. Jerom speaks of it as a generally-received maxim, “That it is the manner of sacred scripture, to deliver, beforehand, the truth of futurity, in types”—_hunc esse morem scripturæ sanctæ ut futurorum veritatem præmittat_, in TYPIS [Hieron. T. III. 1127.]—I know, that the ancient Fathers, and from them many moderns, have exposed themselves to much and deserved censure, by pursuing this principle too minutely and superstitiously, in their mystical and allegorical comments on the Jewish scriptures. But men of sense will consider, that a principle is not therefore to be rejected, because it has been abused. For instance, that the Passover was instituted with a reference to the sacrifice of Christ, that the paschal Lamb was, in the language of St. Austin, a _prophecy_, or, in that of St. Jerom, a _type_, of the lamb of God, will seem highly credible to one who considers the aptness of the correspondence in two related parts of the same system: But, that the famous Law in Deuteronomy, concerning the marriage of a brother’s widow, was _prophetic_, or _typical_ of the duty, incumbent on the ministers of the Gospel, to espouse the widowed church of Christ, is certainly much less clear, and will scarcely be admitted even on the authority of St. Austin.—Hoc ipsum—quod uxorem fratris ad hoc frater jussus est ducere, ut non sibi, sed illi sobolem suscitaret, ejusque vocaret nomine, quod inde nasceretur: quid aliud _in figurâ præmonstrat_, nisi quia unusquisque Evangelii prædicator ita debet in Ecclesiâ laborare, ut defuncto fratri, hoc est Christo, suscitet semen, qui pro nobis mortuus est, et quod suscitatum fuerit, ejus nomen accipiat? _Contr. Faustum_, l. 32.—St. Austin might, perhaps, say for himself, that he had an example of this practice in the mystical comments of St. Paul: it may be so: but an _example_, followed without warrant, in this instance, by the learned Father, and, not improbably, ill understood by him.

[29] Adv. of Learning, B. II.

[30] DR. MIDDLETON, _Works_, vol. III. p. 177. _London_, 1752, 4to.

[31] DR. MIDDLETON, vol. III. p. 177.

[32] See further on this subject, D. L. vol. V. p. 290.

[33] Quand UN SEUL HOMME auroit fait un livre des prédictions de Jesus Christ pour le tems et pour la maniere, et que Jesus Christ seroit venu conformément à ces propheties, ce seroit une force infinie. Mais il y a bien plus ici. C’est une SUITE D’HOMMES durant quatre mille ans, qui constamment & sans variation viennent l’un ensuite de l’autre prédire ce même avénement. C’est UN PEUPLE TOUT ENTIER qui l’annonce, et qui subsiste pendant quatre mille années, pour rendre EN CORPS témoignage des assurances qu’ils en ont, & dont ils ne peuvent être detournés par quelques menaces et quelque persecution qu’on leur fasse: CECI EST TOUT AUTREMENT CONSIDERABLE. Pascal.