their own country, especially its profperous ftate in the last days, the calamities that were to befall them in the intermediate time, and the utter downfal of other nations whofe affairs were then in the most flourishing state, as Egypt, Babylon, Tyre, the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites. And to fuch predictions as these their prophetical commiffions were confined. But the book of Daniel contains a connected feries of prophecy extending from his own time to those glorious and happy times which were the subject of the former prophecies, which happy times he barely announces, without dwelling on the description of them, as the other prophets had done.

The correspondence of many of these prophecies of Daniel with the fubfequent events is remarkably clear and exact, fo as to afford an abundant proof that they were dictated with a fore-knowledge of the events. On this account, however, it has been maintained by unbelievers, ancient and modern, that this book of Daniel must have been written long after the time of Daniel; and indeed after that of Antiochus Epiphanes, till whofe reign it is univerfally acknowledged

that

that the predictions and events correfpond with the greatest exactness. But it appears to me that there is no fufficient ground for the charge of forgery in this cafe; and because this is a subject of considerable importance with refpect to the evidences of revelation in general, though they by no means depend upon it, I fhall in this difcourfe confider it pretty largely.

any

1. With refpect to the authenticity of writings in general, we are ufually determined by the reception of them with the people among whom they were publifhed, who were certainly the beft judges in the cafe; and if they do not appear to have had fufpicion of forgery, we have none. Now the Jewish nation, the best judges in this particular cafe, has always received the book of Daniel with as little fufpicion as those of Ifaiah, Jeremiah, and the other prophets; and our Saviour mentions fome particulars of his prophecies with the greatest respect, as to be fulfilled after his time. It is, indeed, univerfally agreed by the Jews that the canon of their Scriptures, in which the book of Daniel was always included, was settled by

Ezra,

Ezra, or by the great fynagogue, foon after his time. It is therefore highly improbable that any book pretending to greater antiquity fhould get a place in their canon afterwards.

2. There is every reafon to believe that there has been no change in the general character, or principles, of the Jews fince a fhort time after their return from the Babylonish captivity to the prefent time. And perhaps the most remarkable circumstance in their character, is their veneration for their facred books. It has always been carried even to superstition. Whatever respect they might have for other writings, it was far fhort of that which they entertained for those contained in their canon. They were never confounded with those they called the Scriptures, but claffed with those books which, though they confidered them as genuine and valuable, were only allowed a fecondary place in their efteem. These we now call ароcryphal, as the book of Maccabees, Ecclefiafticus, the Wisdom of Solomon, &c.

This high refpect for the Scriptures we fee in our Saviour's time. It showed itself in their cuftom of applying texts of Scripture

to

to every occurrence, and often with little reason. They were, indeed, books that the Jews were justly proud of, no other nation being poffeffed of any fuch. They, moreover, contained the records and principles of their religion, and civil policy, and those predictions in favour of their nation, for the fulfilment of which they were then eagerly looking. The Jews had the fame attachment to their laws and religion, and confequently to their Scriptures, in the time of the Maccabees, as appears by the fevere perfecutions they then bore for their adherence to them, and their refusing for fome time even to defend themselves when they were attacked on the Sabbath day. Can it then be supposed that at or after this time any fuch book as that of Daniel could be received into the Jewish canon of Scripture without immediate detection, and the most disgraceful treatment of the author of fuch an impofture? If the pious Jews had been capable of such a thing as the addition of another book that might do honour to their nation and religion, there were among them too many who were deftitute of all regard to religion, and complied

VOL, III.

CC

plied with the views of Antiochus, and who from other motives would not have failed to discover the cheat. Accordingly it does not appear that the authenticity of the book of Daniel was ever queftioned by any Jew whatever. Daniel is fpoken of by Jofephus, as the greatest of the prophets; and he says that his prophecies were fhewn to Alexander the Great when he was at Jerufalem; which proves at least that, in his opinion, they were extant at that time; and the example of Daniel, which was most probably learned from the book fo called, was recommended in the time of the Maccabees. See 1 Macc. ii. 60.

I

It is farther highly improbable from the nature and contents of the book of Daniel that it fhould have been a forgery.

3.

Had the book of Daniel been the for

of

gery any Jew (and no other perfon could have written fuch a book), and been defigned to impose upon Jews, it would have been written in imitation of fome preceding prophecies of established credit, fuch as thofe of Ifaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, &c. but the contexture of this book is exceedingly unlike that of any of thofe, as will appear on the

flightest