לאפוקי מחגי זהדיה ",the firft prophets : נביאים ראשונים are called ומלאכי האחרונים נינהו

in oppofition to Haggai, Zacharie, and "Malachy, which are the laft." And fo Maimonides and Bartenor tell us thas the prophetæ priores" were fo called, because they prophefied in the times of the firft temple; and the pofteriores," becaufe they prophcfied in the time of the second temple and when thefe later prophets died, then all prophecy expired, and there was left, as they fay, only a " Bath Kol" to fucceed fome time in the room of it. So we are told "Gem. Sanhedrim,"

66

תנו דבנן משמתו נביאים אחרונים חני זכריה ומלאכי .13 .c. I נסתלקה רוח הקודש מישראל ואעפי היו משתמשין בבת קול:

Our Rabbins fay, that from that time the later prophets died, the Holy Spirit was taken away from Ifrael; nevertheless they enjoyed the Filia, vocis:" and this is repeated Maffec. Joma, c. 1. Now all that time which the fpirit of prophecy lafted among the Jews under the fecond temple, their chronology makes to be but forty years. So the author of the book Cofri, Maam. 3. § 39

(.i. c) התמידה הובואה בבית שני קרוב לאבעים שנה

"The con

"tinuance of prophecy under the time of the fecond temple was almoft forty years." And this R. Jehuda's Scholiaft confirms out of an Hiftorico-cabbalitical Treatife of R. Abraham Ben Dior. and a little after he tells us, that after forty years their " fapientes"

אחד ארבעים שנה המון החכמים נקדאים אנשי,were cal d fenators

bian “after forty years were paffed, all the wife men were called the men of the great fynagogue." And therefore the author of that book ufeth this ara of the ceffation of prophecy; and fo this is commonly noted as a famous epocha among all their chronologers, as the book Juchafin, the Seder Olam Zuta, as R. David Gantz hath fummed them all up in his chronological hiftory put forth lately by Vorftius. The like may be obferved from 1 Maccab. ix. 27. and chap. iv. 46 and chap. xiv. 41.

This Ceffation of prophecy determined as it were all that old difpenfation wherein God hath manifefted himself to the Jews under the law, that fo that growing old and thus wearing away, they might expect that new difpenfation of the Meffiah which had been proinited fo long before, and which thould again reftore this prophctical fpirit more abundantly. And fo this interftitium of prophecy is infinuated by Joel ii. in thofe words concerning the later times; In thofe days fhall your fons and your daughters prophefy, &c." And fo St. Peter, Acts ii. makes ufe of the place to take off that admiration with the Jews were poffeffed withal to fee fo plentiful an effufion of the prophetical fpirit again: and therefore this fpirit of prophecy is called the teftimony of Jefus in the apocalypfe, ch. xix.

According to this notion we muft understand that paffage in John vii. 39. "The Holy Ghoft was not yet given, because Jefus was "not get glorified." To which that in Ephef. iv. "He afcended up on high, and gave gifts unto men," plainly anfwers: as like

68

wife the answer which the Chriftians at Ephefus made to Paul, Acts xix. when he afked them whether they had received the Holy Ghost, "That they knew not whether there. was a Holy Ghaft," (that is) whether there were any extraordinary fpirit, or fpirit of prophecy restored again to the church or not, as hath been well obferved of late by fome learned men. But enough of this.

We come now briefly to difpatch the fecond enquiry, viz." What "time the fpirit of prophecy, which was again, restored by our "Saviour, ceafed in the Chriftian church.". It may be thought that St. John was the laft of Chriftian prophets, for that the Apocalypfe is the latest dated of any book which is received into the canon of the New Teftament. But I know no place of Scripture that intimates any fuch thing, as if the fpirit of prophecy was fo foon to expire. And, indeed, if we may believe the primitive fathers, it did not; though it overlived St. John's time but a little. Eufebius * tells us of one Quadratus, ὃν ἅμα ταῖς Φιλίππε θυγατράσι Προφητικώ χαρίσματι λόγος έχει διαπρέψαι, "who together with the daughters of Philip had the gift of prophecy. So the report was." ." This Quadratus, as he tells us, lived in Trajan's time, which was but at the beginning of the second century. And a little after, fpeaking of good men in that age, he adds, Τα θεία πνεύματος εἰσέτι δι' αὐτῶν πλείσαι παράδοξοι δυνάμεις ενήργεν, " Many frange and admirable ***virtues of the divine fpirit as yet fhewed forth themfelves by "them." And the fame author, lib. IV. §18. tells us out of Juftin Martyr, who lived in the middle of the fecond century, and then writ his apology for the Chriftians, that the gift of prophecy was ftill to be feen in the church, Γράφει δὲ καὶ ὡς ὅτι μέχρι καὶ αὐτο χαρίσματα προφιλικά διέλαμπεν ἐπὶ της Εκκλησίας †. Yet not long af terward there is little or no remembrance of the prophetical fpirit remaining in the church. Hence the Montanifts are by fome of the fathers proved to be no better then diffemblers when they pretended to the gift of prophecy, for that it was then ceafed in the church. And fo Eufebius tells us, lib. V. § 3. and withal that "Montanus and his companions only took advantage of that virtue of working wonders which yet appeared (as was reported, though doubtfully) in fome places, to make a femblance of the fpirit of prophecy ; Τῶν δὲ ἀμφὶ Μολανὸν καὶ ̓Αλκιβιάδῳ καὶ Θεόδλον περὶ τίω φρυγίαν ἄρι τότε πρῶτον τίω περὶ τῇ προφητεύειν υπόληψιν παρα πολλοῖς ἐκφερομένων. Πλῆσαι γὰρ τῶν καὶ ἄλλαι παραδοξοποιίαι το θείς χαρίσματΘ εἰσέτι τότε κατὰ διαφόρες ἐκκλησίας ἐκτελέμεναι, πίςιν παρα πολλοῖς τῆς κακείνες προφητεύειν παρείχον, καὶ δὴ διαφωνίας υπαρχέσεις περὶ τῶν δεδηλωμένων. "But then especially did Montanus, Alci"biades, and Theodotus, raise up in many an opinion that they prophefied and this belief was fo much the more increafed con

66

Hift. Ecclef. lib. III. § 37.

+ Vide Jufin, Martyr. iù Dial, cum Tryphone Judæo, wagà juiguixgo rūv węopnzand χαρισματα έγινα

A a 3

"cerning

cerning their prophefying, for that as yet in feveral churches were "wrought many miraculous and ftupendous effects of the Holy Spirit, though yet there was no perfect agreement in their opinion about this."

*

To conclude this (and to haften to en end of this dicourfe of prophecy), there is, indeed, in antiquity more frequent mention of fome miracles wrought in the name of Chrift; but lefs is faid concerning the prophetical virtue, efpecially after the fecond century. That it was rare, and to be feen but fometimes, and more obfcurely in fome few Chritians only who had attained to a good degree of felf-purification, is intimated by that of Origen, in his 7th book againt Celfus. Πλίω καὶ νῦν ἔτι ἴχνη ἐςὶ τὸ ἁγία πνεύματος παρὰ ὀλίγοις, τὰς ψυχὰς τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ταῖς κατ' αὐτὸν πράξεσι κεκαθαρ μθώοις.

CHA P. XIII.

Some Rules and Obfervations concerning Prophetical Writ in general.

1

WE fhould now fhut up all this difcourfe about prophecy; only, before we conclude, it may not be amifs to add a few rules for the better understanding of prophetical writ in general.

1. The firft (which yet we shall rather put under debate) is concerning the ftyle and manner of languaging all pieces of prophecy whether that was not peculiarly the work of the prophet himself whether it does not feem that the prophetical fpirit dictated the matter only or principally, yet did leave the words to the prophet himfelf. It may be confidered that God made not ufe of idiots or fools to reveal his will by, but fuch whofe intellectuals were entire and perfect; and that he imprinted fuch a clear copy of his truth upon them, as that it became their own fenfe, being digefted fully into their understandings; fo as they were able to deliver and reprefent it to others as truly as any can paint forth his own thoughts. If the matter and fubftance of things be once lively in the mind, "verba nan invita fequentur:" and according as that matter operates upon the mind and phantafy, fo will the phrafe and language be in which it is expreffed. And therefore I think to doubt whether the prophets might not miflake in reprefenting the mind of God in their prophetical infpirations, except all their words had been alfo dictated to them, is to question whether they could speak fenfe as wife men, and tell their own thoughts and experiences truly or not. And indeed it feems moft agreeable to the nature of all thefe prophetical vifions and dreams we have difcourfed of, wherein the nature of the enthufiafm confifted in a fymbolical and hieroglyphical fhaping forth of intelligible things in their imaginations, and enlightening the understanding of the prophets to difcern the

And that the gift of working miracles was ceafed in his time, St. Chryfoftom doth more than once afarm, Tüç durapius suv oquitur dö'ixy@dzɔkinila, lib. IV. De Sacerdotio, &c. The like is affirmed by St. Austin,

fcope

fcope and meaning of thefe vifa or phantafmata; that those words and phrafes in which they were audibly expreffed to the hearers afterwards or penned down, fhould be the prophet's own; for the matter was not (as feems evident from what hath been faid) reprefented always by words, but by things. Though I know that fometime in thefe vifions they had a voice fpeaking to them; yet it is not likely that voice. fhould fo dilate and comment fo. largely upon things, as it was fit the prophet, fhould do when he repeated the fame things to vulgar ears.

It may also further be confidered that our Saviour and hi apoftles generally quote paffages out of the Old Teftament as they were tranflated by the LXX, and that where the LXX have not rendered them verbatim, but have much varied the manner of phrafing things from the original, as hath been abundantly obferved by philologers; which it is not likely they would have done, had the original words been the very dictate of the fpirit, for certainly they would feem not to need any fuch paraphraftical variations, as being of themselves full and clear enough; befides, herein they might feem to weaken the authenticalnefs of the divine oracles. And indeed hath not the fwerving from this notion made fome of late conceit (though erroneoufly) the tranflation of the LXX to be more authentical than the Hebrew, which they would needs perfuade us had been corrupted by the Jews, our Saviour declining the phrafcology .thereof?

Befides, we find the prophets fpeaking every one of them in his own dialect; and fuch a variety of ftyle and phrafeology appears in their writings, as may argue them to have spoken according to their own proper genius: which is obferved by the Jews themfelves (who are most zealoufly, as is well known, devoted to the very letter of the text) in all the prophets except Mofes, and that part of Mofes only which contains the Decalogue. And hence we have that rule,

אין סגנון אחד עולה לשני נביאים ולא יתנבאו שנחים .Gem. Sanhedr

66.

(TND) The fame form doth not afcend upon two prophets, neither do both of them prophefy in the fame form. Which rule Cocceius confeffeth he knows not the meaning of: 'but Abarbanel, who better understood the mind of his own compatriots, in his comment upom Jeremy, ch. xlix. gives us a full account of it, upon occafion of fome phrafes in that prophecy concerning Edom, parallel to what we find in Obadiah. From this congruency of the ftyle in both he thus takes occafion to lay down our prefent notion as the fenfe of that former theorem, NS

The prophets. * מנביאים באותו אופן כשהיה מנבא משה וכו:

66

"did not prophefy in the fame manner as Mofes did: for he prophefied from God immediately, from whom he received not only "the prophecy, but alfo the very words and phrafes; and accordingly as he heard them, fo he wrote them in the book of the law, in the very fame words which he heard from God: but as for the reft of the prophets, they beheld in their vifiols the things them

66

A a 4

felves

felves which God made known to them, and both declared and "expreffed them in their own phrafeology."

Thus we fee he afcribes the phrafe and ftyle every where to the prophet himfelf, except only in the law, which he fuppofeth to have been dictated totidem verbis: which is probable enough, if he means the law ftrictly fo taken, viz. for the Decalogue, as it is most likely he doth. And again a little after, DDYYDI OʻYIT INT

66

The thing theilel:és • איתם בלשון הפסוקי שחיו רג לים בהם:

66

they faw in prophecy, but they themselves did explain and interpret them in that dialect which was moft familiar to them." And this, as he there tells, was the reafon why the fame kind of phrafeology occurred not among the prophets, according to the fenfe of the Talmudifts maxim we mentioned. The like the Jewish fcholiafts obferve upon thofe falfe prophets who did all uno ore bid Ahab afcend up to Ramoth-Gilead and profper, 121

2D NX

Unus idemque loquendi modus nunquam reperitur in deobps prophetis:" and therefore they made it, an argument that thefe were falfe prophets, because they did idem canticum canere," for they all faid," Go up and profper." And thus the Heathenish philofopher Plutarch, in his περὶ τὸ μὴ χρᾶν ἔμμεῖρα νῦν τίω Πυθίαν, thought likewife concerning his oracle, telling us, "That all En

thufiafm is a mixture of two motions, the one is impreffed upon "the foul which is God's organ, the other arifeth from it;" and : therefore he favs. Ο μαντικὸς ἐνθεσιαμός, ὥσπερ ὁ ἐρωτικές, χρῆται τῇ υποκειμένη δυνάμει καὶ κινεῖ τῶν δεξαμένων ἕκαςον καθ ̓ ὅ πέφυκεν,

All prophetical Enthufiafm, like as alfo that which is amatorious, "doth make ufe of the fabject faculty, and moves every recipient according to its difpofition and nature." And thence he thus excufeth the rough and unpolished language in which the oracles were fometime delivered, moft fitly to our purpofe deferibing prophetical infpiration, Οὐ γὰρ ἐςι Θεῖ ἡ γῆρας, δὲ ὁ φθόγ[ο, κδὲ ἡ λέξις, ἐδὲ τὸ μέτρον, ἀλλὰ τῆς γυναικὸς ἐκεῖνον δὲ μόνον τας φαντασίας παρ φίζησι, καὶ φῶς ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ ποιεῖ πρὸς τὸ μέλλον· ὁ γὰρ ἐθεσιασμὸς τοῖςTis,For neither voice, nor found, nor phrase, nor metre is

from God, but from Pythia herfelf; God only fuppeditates the phantafms, and kindles a light in the foul to fignify future things: "for all Enthufiafim is after this manner." Hence was that old faying of Heraclius, Ὁ ἄνεξ, ὅ τὸ μαντεῖόν ἐςι τὸ ἐν Δελφοῖς, ὅτε λέ4 χει, ὅτε κρύπτει, ἀλλὰ σημαίνει, "That the king whofe oracle is at Delphi, neither plainly expreffes, nor conceals, but only obfcurely intimates by figns." But to conclude this first particular, 1 fhall add by way of caution, we must not think that we can vary fcripture-expreflion fo fecurely with retaining the true meaning, except we likewife had as real an understanding of the fenfe itfelf as the prophets had, over whom God alfo did fo far fuperintend in their copying forth his truth, as not to fuffer them to fwerye from his meaning. And fo we have done with that particular.