tion of Jeremiah's prophecy; and under the same conviction, in my own mind, that the prophecy is one which was absolute and peremptory, as to the event which it declared, I was inclined at first to follow the opinion of Grotius respecting the genealogy. My more mature thoughts, however, are in favour of the second interpretation which I have now stated. That interpretation preserves the sense of the Prophecy in its fullest terms, and requires no conjectural suppositions to be made in the order of the genealogy. It exhibits the whole prediction as bearing upon that event which is its proper object; the deposal of Coniah and his line, and the abrogation of the Temporal Kingdom in the house of David. And as the Promises granted to David had been, not simply that he should never want a son, but that he should never "want a son to sit on his throne," so the Repeal of those promises is made more conformable to the first scope of them, if it pronounce the excision of kingly heirs, rather than of offspring.

And in harmony with this view, the observant reader will perceive, that the Evangelical prophecies of Jeremiah, opposed to these which are Temporal ones, introduce specifically a "future king upon the throne of David," as the contemporary supplement to this Deposal of Coniah and his line. See especially Jerem. xxxiii. 21.

Dathe, in his Version, has rendered the clause in ques tion thus: "Literis hoc mandate, Virum istum infelicis"simum futurum esse :" A translation which is intended, I presume, to hinder the collision of the prophetic text with the genealogy. Buddeus (Hist. Vet. Test. tom. ii. p. 461.) in like manner, destructum, infelicem, et miserum. I am not aware how this vague translation is to be justified.

Michaelis*, after some doubt and hesitation, settles upon the notion of exul, or extorris ex patria, as the most probable sense of the original noun, in all the Four passages in which it occurs; and expresses a wish that he had so translated it in his German Version. But this sense is introduced without any leading authority, either in the Etymology, or in the Ancient Versions, to sanction it; on which account it is unsatisfactory.

PAGE 259.

A tradition is preserved by Josephus, which, if the substance of it be true, serves to shew the confessed notoriety of the facts of the miracle wrought upon Jeroboam and his Altar, and also the importance felt to be attached to the miracle in Samaria. He relates, that the Bethel Prophet, of whose deceitful mind we have proof sufficient in the Scripture History, instructed the Idolatrous king, how to relieve himself from the apparent miracle, by explaining the case in a natural way. The explanation offered was this: "That the king's "hand was seized with a torpor of paralysis, from the pressure of the victims which he had to offer, and, after "a pause of the service, was restored again: and that the "Altar also, being new, burst under its load." According to this narrative, the palpable facts, the withering and restoration of Jeroboam's hand, and the rending of the Altar, were granted by the Samaritan unbelievers: and this their admission includes all that can be wanted to authenticate the miracle by their adverse testimony. For as to their explanation of it, it is obvious that such expedients of unbelief can never fail. It is no less obvious that

*Supplem. ad Lex. Hebr. No. 1984.

the accidental coincidence of the facts with the message and purpose of the Judah prophet, would itself be hardly less than a miracle.

The tradition, if it be authentic, presents what is perhaps one of the oldest essays of Infidelity, transmitted to us, in explaining a Scripture Miracle, and it seems to afford no bad measure of their usual success.-Joseph. Antiq. lib. viii. cap. 8. 9. To the Judah Prophet Josephus gives the name of Jadon.

PAGE 290.

The same principle, by which I apply Hosea's prophecy to the doctrine of a Future State," in the destruction of Death," will explicate the Vision of Ezekiel, in the Resurrection of the Dry Bones, to the sense of a proper Resurrection. In each case the Temporal state of the House of Israel appears to be the proper subject, and in each case the Temporal Promise is conveyed in the envelope of the real and greater consummation of the things expressed or figured. The anxious hope and inquiries of men, in those subjects, created the pledge, that God did not exhibit an illusion to their mind, in the form either of the Prophecy, or the Vision. I would not contend that every envelope of a prophecy must have declared a literal truth: for some of the modes of representation chosen might be such as affected no important truth; but in the question concerning Death and the Resurrection, a Vision must be understood to intend a real information to the craving hope of the human soul.

Bishop Warburton has endeavoured to deprive this Vision of Ezekiel of its higher application. But I see a great superiority of discernment in the reasoning of Tertul. lian on this head; who has maintained and enforced the same principle which I have taken; viz., " that the veracity of

the prophecy implies the higher truth, though the proper subject of it may be the temporal State of Israel." That acute and eloquent Father has thus expressed himself, "Denique, hoc ipso quod recidivatus Judaici status de 66 recorporatione et redanimatione ossium figuratur, id quo"que eventurum ossibus probatur. Non enim possit de os"sibus figura componi, si non idipsum et ossibus eventu"rum esset. Nam etsi figmentum veritatis in imagine est, "imago ipsa in veritate est sui. Necesse est esse prius sibi,

quo alii configuretur. De vacuo similitudo non competit; "de nullo parabola non convenit. Ita oportebit ossium

quoque credi reviscerationem et respirationem, qualis "dicitur, de qua possit exprimi Judaicorum rerum refor"matio qualis affingitur," &c. The whole reasoning, which is pursued to some extent, is distinguished by its justness, and real penetration of the subject.-De Resurrect. p. 400.

66

PAGE 297.

Habak. ii. 2. 3. "For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie.

Though it tarry, wait for it." I have explained and applied this text in a Gospel sense, so far as I think it will justly bear that sense. I am aware indeed that others have pressed it much further, or rather have given it a different form. Bishop Chandler, in his valuable work, "The Defence of Christianity," has placed it among his "Twelve Texts, which literally and singly prophesy of "the coming of the Messias." (Defence, p. 132.) To justify his interpretation, he follows the other mode of version; "He shall speak: though he tarry, wait for him." The verb being impersonally put in the original, he would supply, as its personal subject, the Messias. This interpretation, although it would favour my object,

which is to shew the copiousness of prophecy in reference to the Messiah and the Gospel, I do not adopt: It is uncertain both in the reason, and in the form, of the text. It borrows too much from imperfect premises. And perhaps we sacrifice the true spirit of prophecy, as well as violate its letter, when we are intent on making every thing in it clear and express; instead of being satisfied with its general allusions, as well as its direct notices, concerning the Gospel subject.

Eusebius cites a direct prophecy of the Messiah from another text of this same prophet; viz., chap. ii. 13. "Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even "for salvation with thine anointed." Demonst. Evang. lib. iv. p. 189. But the passage is retrospective and historical, not predictive. The whole chapter, although, in our Version, entitled a Prayer, is more a devotional Hymn of Praise; and this salvation of the anointed is a past deliverance of God's chosen servants.

PAGE 399.

On the question concerning the consistency of the Divine Fore-knowledge with Human Freedom, there are some opinions proposed by Archbishop King, in his Sermon on the subject, to which, notwithstanding the high sanction which they have lately received from the pen of Mr. Whately, the editor of that Sermon, and from the praise and expressed approbation of Dr. Copleston, I am unable to give my assent.

Dr. King, if I understand his hypothesis rightly, conceives some difference in kind, or "in properties and "effects," between the divine knowledge, and human; by means of which difference the difficulty of the question he thinks may be relieved.