DISSERTATIONS ΟΝΤΗ Ε PROPHECIES, Which have remarkably been fulfilled, and at this time are fulfilling in the world. INTRODUCTION to the LECTURE founded by the Honorable ROBERT BOYL E, January 5, 1756, T HERE is not a ftronger or more convincing proof of divine revelation, than the fure word of prophecy. But to the truth of prophecy it is objected, that the predictions were written after the events; and could it be proved as well as afferted, it would really be an infuperable objection. It was thought therefore that a greater service VOL. II. could B could not be done to the cause of Christianity, than by an induction of particulars to show, that the predictions were prior to the events, nay that feveral prophecies have been fulfilled in these later ages, and are fulfilling even at this present time: And for the farther profecution and the better encouragement of this work, I have been called to preach these lectures, by the favor and recommendation of the great prelate, who having himself written moft excellently of the ufe and intent of prophecy, is alfo willing to reward and encourage any one who but endevors well on the fame fubject. The ready and gracious concurrence of the (1) other trustees was an equal honor and favor, and is deferving of the most grateful acknowlegements. Engaging in this fervice may indeed have retarded the publication of thefe difcourfes longer than was intended; but perhaps they may be the better for the delay, fince there' have (1)The trustees appointed by Mr. Boyle himself were Sir John Rotheram, Serjeant at law, Sir Henry Afhurft of London, Knt. and Bart. Thomas TenifonD.D. afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, and John Evelyn Efq;. Archbishop Tenifon, the furvivor of thefe, nominated and appointed for trustees Ri chard Earl of Burlington; Dr. Edmund Gibfon, then Archdeacon of Surry, afterwards Lord Bishop of London; Dr. Charles Trimnel, then Bishop of Norwich, afterwards Bishop of Winchester; Dr. White Kennet, then Dean, afterwards Bishop of Peterborough; and Dr. Samuel Bradford, then Rector have been more frequent occafions to review and reconfider them; and time corrects and improves works as well as generous wines, at leaft affords opportunities of correcting and improving them. This work hath already been deduced to the prophecies of Daniel and as fome time and pains have been employed in explaining fome parts of his prophecies, and more will be taken in explaining other parts; it may be be proper, before we proceed, to confider the principal objections which have been made to the genuinness of the book of Daniel. It was before afferted, that the first who called in question the truth and authenticity of Daniel's prophecies, was the famous Porphyry, who maintained that they were written about the time of Antiochus Epiphanes: but he was amply refuted by (2) Jerome, and hath been and will be more amply refuted still in the course of these differtations. Rector of St. Mary Le Bow, afterwards Bishop of Rochefter. The Earl of Burlington, being the only furviving truftee, appointed to fucceed him in the faid truft, William then Marquis of Hartington, now Duke of Devonshire, Dr. Thomas Sherlock Lord Bishop of London, Dr. Martin Benfon Lord A Bishop of Glocefter, Dr. Tho- (2) Hieron. Comment. in A modern infidel hath followed Porphyry's example, and in his Scheme of litteral prophecy hath heaped together all that he could find or invent against the book of Daniel, and hath comprised the whole in eleven objections, in order to fhow that the book was written about the time of the Maccabees: but he likewife hath been refuted to the fatisfaction of every intelligent and impartial reader; as indeed there never were any arguments urged in favor of infidelity, but better were always produced in fupport of truth. The fubftance of his (3) objections and of the answers to him may with truth and candor be represented in the following manner. 1. It is objected, that the famous Daniel, mentioned by Ezekiel, could not be the author of the book of Daniel; becaufe Ezekiel, who prophefied in the fifth year of Jehoiakim king of Judah, implies Daniel at that time to be a perfon in years; whereas the book of Daniel fpeaks of Daniel at that time as a youth. But here the objector is either ignorantly or wilfully guilty of grofs mifrepresentation. For Ezekiel did not prophefy in the fifth year of Jehoiakim, nor in the reign of Jehoiakim at all; but he began (3) See Collins's Scheme of Bishop Chandler's Vindication. litteral prophecy, p. 149-157. p. 4-157. Sam. Chandier's |