Part 18

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.

[34] See the passage before referred to in Serm. I. p. 6.

[35] Daniel, c. ii.

[36] Est autem Quaternio iste regnorum Danielis (quod imprimis observari velim) CHRONOLOGIA QUÆDAM PROPHETICA, non tam annorum quàm regnorum intervallis distincta, ubi regnorum in præcipuâ orbis terrarum parte, simul ecclesiam et populum Dei complexâ, sibi invicem succedentium serie, monstratur tempus quo Christi regnum à tot seculis promissum et primùm inchoandum sit, idemque demum certis temporibus consummandum.

—Ex his, quæ dicta sunt, ratio elucet, quare, ex omnibus mundi regnis, quatuor hæc sola selegit Spiritus sanctus, quorum fata tam insigni ornaret prophetiâ; nempe quia ex his solis inter omnia mundi regna periodus temporum ejusmodi contexi potuit, qua rectâ serie et ordinatâ successione perduceret ad tempora et momenta regni Christi. Non verò quia nulla istis paria imperia, forsan et aliquibus majora, per omnia secula orbis visurus esset. Nam neque Saracenorum olím, neque hodie Turcarum, neque Tartarorum regna ditionis amplitudine Persico aut Græco, puto nec Assyrio, quicquam concedunt; imò, ni fallor, excedunt. MEDE’S Works, B. III. p. 712. Lond. 1672.

[37] To this purpose the late learned and ingenious author of the _Discourses on Prophecy_—“A figurative and dark description of a future event will be figurative and dark still, when the event happens.” And again—“No event can make a figurative or metaphorical expression to be a plain or literal one.” Bishop Sherlock, _Disc._ II. p. 32 and 36. London, 1749.

[38] Le dessein de Dieu est plus de perfectionner la volonté, que l’esprit. Or, la clarté parfaite ne serviroit qu’à l’esprit, & nuiroit à la volonté. Pascal.

[39] Rom. iv. 17.

[40] Ταῦτα ὁ Θεὸς προεμήνυσε διὰ τοῦ προφητικοῦ πνεύματος μέλλειν γίνεσθαι, ἵν’, ὅταν γένηται, μὴ ἀπιϛηθῇ, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ προειρῆσθαι πιϛευθῇ. J. MARTYR, _Apol._ I. c. 74.

[41] Yet hear in how decisive a tone a certain writer, of no small account with the infidel party, reprobates this argument:—“Je dis de plus, qu’aucune prophétie ne sauroit faire autorité pour moi.” [Rousseau, Œuvres, T. III. p. 156. La Haye, 1762.] “I say,” says Mr. Rousseau, “that the argument from prophecy can have no weight with me.” If you ask his reason, it follows. “Because, to give it any authority, three conditions are required, the concurrence of which is impossible. First, I must have been, myself, a witness of the prophecy, when delivered. Secondly, I must have been, myself; a witness of the event: And lastly, I must have it demonstrated to me that the agreement between the prophecy and the event could not have been fortuitous. For though the prophecy were clearer, and more precise, than a geometrical axiom, yet as the clearness of a prediction, made at hazard, does not render the accomplishment of it impossible, this accomplishment, allowing it to take place, proves nothing, strictly speaking, in favour of the person who foretold it.”