ing the other, how could the other Prophet know what views or interests a stranger might have? But besides that, if he had really known him, there was ground for suspicion, from the place he lived in, and other circumstances, that he might be moved by envy or malice to deceive the man of Judah, who had boldly reproved Jeroboam's idolatry which himself had winked at, and who was likely to eclipse the honour of the old Prophet by the signal miracles he had wrought, and by the respect the king had shown him. So that this is a second aggravation of his fault, that he trusted too easily to a man whose honesty he knew nothing of, and who might probably have corrupt views in the business he came upon.

3. As to the commands themselves carrying nothing in them, to direct one which to prefer, that is not true; for the command given by God was founded, probably, upon two good reasons. He was not to eat in that place, for fear of giving countenance to their idolatries: and he was not to return "the same way," for fear of being sent after and detained; which reasons were as good against his coming back with the old Prophet. And what reason could there be for his coming back? No good end (so far as appears) could be answered in it, except it were to refresh, which was very slight. But besides the matter of the command, there was a most notorious difference in the manner of their notification. One came directly from God, or an angel of God: the other from a man only. There ought to have been the same proof and certainty of a Divine repeal, as there had before been of a Divine command. A prophet might lie; God himself, or an angel from God, could not. The man of God should have insisted upon a sign, to prove this Prophet's commission for saying what he did say; or should have waited till God himself might direct what to do. It does not follow from a man's being honoured with the gift of prophecy, that he becomes from thenceforwards impeccable. God by making a prophet does not unmake the man, or destroy his free agency. So that it is of very little moment for

the Objector to observe, that the "lying Prophet had the "gift of prophecy continued to him" notwithstanding. So had Balaam before, and Judas had the extraordinary gifts after: which may teach us, that God does not approve of every thing that gifted men may do. Those gifts are bestowed for public use: but the person's being accepted or otherwise depends upon his private demeanour. St. Paul himself, with his extraordinary gifts, was not out of all possible danger of becoming a castaway 9. Many will say to our Lord, at the last day, "Have we not pro"phesied in thy name?” To whom, notwithstanding, he will make answer, "Depart from me, ye that work iniquity"."

66

But the Objector takes notice also, that the lying Prophet was not punished: which is very true. And we are taught by this instance, not to pass any judgment, as to God's final favour or disfavour, from his outward dispensations, any farther than we have special grounds for it. The Prophet that was spared appears to have been a much worse man in every view, than the Prophet that was punished: but his account was adjourned to another time, or to another world. Every history furnishes us with many like instances of the best men being taken off first, and the worst being left behind, to live longer and repent, or to meet with the severer doom. Whatever be the reason, the fact is certain, that so it oftentimes is s and it is no more an argument against Scripture, than it is against the being of God and Providence, that is, none at all for a life to come will adjust every seeming inequality, and will set all things right.

It is thought hard that the Lord should pronounce, by the mouth of the lying Prophet, the "doom of the Prophet he so fatally deceived." But it appears to be

66

91 Cor. ix. 27.

r Matt. vii. 23. Conf. Carpzov. Introd. p. iii. 58.

• See many instances numbered up by Cotta, in Tully de Natura Deorum, lib. iii. c. 32, 33. It is an old objection against Providence; and if it be of any force, concludes for Atheism.

right, and very suitable to the Divine Majesty, not to vouchsafe the deceived Prophet the favour of immediate revelation, at a time when he determined to take exemplary punishment upon him. Besides, the rebuke coming from the very man that deceived him, made it the more sensible and affecting and it may serve for a very instructive lesson to every one against being too credulous, and giving ear to deceivers; lest, when they have so deceived them, Providence may so order it, that they may be the first to upbraid them with their too easy credulity.

:

Upon the whole, there appears nothing in the Divine conduct, with respect to the present article, that can be justly found fault with. Some specious shows there are, while we look no deeper than the surface: but taking the thing in its best light, (even according to our narrow and scanty views,) and it carries nothing amiss in it. Besides, Divine Wisdom may yet see infinitely more than we are able to imagine. It is not necessary, it is not possible, for us to assign all the particular reasons either of God's ordinary or extraordinary dispensations: but in all such cases, (since God's judgments are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out,) it is sufficient for every modest man to say, "It is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous "in our eyes."

I KINGS XVII. 1. 2 KINGS I. 9.

The two chapters here referred to contain some part of the history of the prophet Elijah, who was too great and too good a man to escape the censure of our smart Objector, who writes thus: "Elijah's causing fire to "come down from heaven, to destroy two captains with "their companies, for no other fault but bluntly deliver"ing a message from the king, and perhaps in the very "words they were commanded, was not so cruel as his "hindering it from raining upon the earth for the space "of three years and six months; since a drought of that "continuance, without dew or rain, in such a barren

"country as Judea, must have, without miracles, de"stroyed every thing; and yet St. James from hence "takes occasion to recommend the efficacy of prayer t." But what does our faultering detractor here mean by throwing the blame upon Elijah? Elijah could fetch no fire from heaven, but what it should please God to send, nor hinder it from raining beyond what God should hinder. The blame therefore, if any blame there be, must be thrown upon God himself. But can our Objector talk one word of sense against the sovereign power of the Almighty, in such cases? To make it look like sense, he throws the fault upon a man: but since the things done were beyond the power of man, it is nonsense in that way, as much as in the other; and blasphemy it must be both ways. By the Scripture account, it was God that did all: and therefore, if there was nothing done but what God had a right to do, (and he is the best judge of the wisdom of it,) then Scripture is not justly chargeable on this head. God destroyed the two captains and their companies by fire from heaven, because they came to take his Prophet by force, and accosted him rudely. God will have his prophets reverenced, and not affronted, because they are allied to him; and every affront offered to them is justly resented as an indignity to God himself. But God made a distinction, even in that case, between rude and reverent behaviour; and therefore the third captain with his company, since they had been taught some modesty and good manners towards so eminent a Prophet of God most high, were used with tenderness, and came off unhurt.

As to God's withholding rain, who should do it but he? Or who shall call him to account for it? He best knew how long such a barren country as Judea could bear a drought though where our author has learned that Judea, the land" flowing with milk and honey "," was a

t Christianity as Old, &c. p. 265.

u Vid. Bochart. Hieroz. part. ii. lib. iv. cap. 12. p. 520. Carpzov. Introduct. part. iii. p. 472.

barren country, he has not told us. To be short, when this gentleman is of the counsels of Heaven, he may pretend, with a better grace, to direct how long it may be at any time proper for God to withhold rain or dews: but to pretend to it now is too assuming. Waving the blasphemy, it is, in the softest terms we can give it, pert and pragmatical, intruding into a province which belongs to no mortal. The like objections would lie against all the considerable plagues, dearths, famines, or earthquakes, which God, in his just judgment, has ever sent upon mankind. And what can such profane carping end in, but in downright Atheism?

2 KINGS II. 23, 24.

This place of Scripture treats of Elisha's cursing the children that mocked him : upon which our Objector thus descants *.

"Who is not surprised to find the holy Prophet Elisha "" cursing, in THE NAME OF THE LORD, LITTLE CHIL"DREN, for calling him BALD-PATE? And what is still "more surprising, TWO SHE BEARS, upon his cursing,

STRAIGHT DEVOURED FORTY-TWO LITTLE CHIL

"DREN." Well: What is there at all surprising in that whole story? Though men of little minds, and narrow views, may sometimes be surprised at very plain and common things. Is it that a Prophet should curse? But that was part of a Prophet's office and business: for Prophets had commission either to curse or to bless in the name of the Lord. It would have been much more surprising, if any one but a Prophet should have done it, and

with effect.

Was it that a Prophet should curse little children? But it was a good lesson of instruction to parents, to educate their children better, and not to initiate them in the Devil's service, before they know their right hand from their left. If the children were little, and innocent on account

* Christianity as Old, &c. p. 265.