in a general sense, is a particular virtue or quality which nature has bestowed on some things exclusive of all others; thus, colour is a property of light; extension, figure, divisibility, and impenetrability, are properties of body.

law, is described to be the highest right which a person has or can have to anything.

There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over certain external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe. And yet there are very few that will give themselves the trouble to consider the original and foundation of this right. Pleased as we are with the possession, we seem afraid to look back to the means by which it was acquired, as if fearful of some defect in our title; or at best we rest satisfied with the decision of the laws in our favour, without examining the reason or authority upon which those laws have been built. We think it enough that our title is derived by the grant of the former proprietor, by descent from our ancestors, or by the last will and testament of the dying owner: not caring to reflect, that (accurately and strictly speaking) there is no foundation in nature or in natural law, why a set of words upon parchment should convey the dominion of land; why the son should have a right to exclude his fellow-creatures from a de- But when mankind increased in number, craft, and ambition, it became necessary to entertain conceptions of more permanent dominion; and to appropriate to individuals, not the immediate use only, but the very substance of the thing to be used: otherwise innumerable tumults must have arisen, and the good order of the world been continually broken and disturbed, while a variety of persons were striving who should get the first occupation of the same thing, or disputing which of them had actually gained it. As human life also grew more and more refined, abundance of conveniences were devised to render it more easy, commodious, and agreeable; as habitations for shelter and safety, and raiment for warmth and decency. But no man would be at the trouble to provide either, so long as he had only an usufructuary property in them, which was to cease the instant that he quitted possession;—if, as soon as he walked out of his tent, or pulled off his garment, the next stranger who came by would have a right to inhabit the one and to wear the other. In case of habitations in particular, it was natural to observe, that even the brute creation, to whom every thing else was in common, maintained a permanent property in their dwellings, especially for the protection of their young; that the birds of the air had nests, and the beasts of the field had caverns, the invasion of which they deemed a very flagrant injustice, and would sacrifice their lives to preserve them. Hence a property was soon established in every man's house and home-stall; which seem to have been originally mere temporary huts or moveable cabins, suited to the design of Providence for more speedily peopling the earth, and fitted to the wandering life of their owners, before any extensive property in the soil or ground was established. And there can be no doubt, but that moveables of every kind became sooner appropriated than the permanent substantial soil: partly because they were more susceptible of a long occupancy, which might be continued for months together without any sensible interruption, and at length by usage ripen into an established right; but principally because few of them could be fit for use, till improved and meliorated by the bodily labour of the occupant; which bodily labour, bestowed upon any subject which before lay in common to all men, is universally allowed to give the fairest and most reasonable title to an exclusive property therein.

The article of food was a more immediate call, and therefore a more early consideration. Such as were not otherwise contented with the spontaneous product of the earth fought for a more solid refreshment in the flesh of beasts, which they obtained by hunting. But the frequent disappointments incident to that method of provision induced them to gather together such animals as were of a more tame and equacuous nature; and to establish a permanent property in their flocks and herds, in order to fulfill themselves in a less precarious manner, partly by the milk of their dams, and partly by the flesh of the young. The support of these their cattle made the article of water also a very important point. And therefore the book of Genesis (the most venerable monument of antiquity, considered merely with a view to history) will furnish us with frequent instances of violent contentions concerning wells; the exclusive property of which appears to have been established in the first digger or occupant, even in such places where the ground and herbage remain. Property remained yet in common. Thus we find Abraham, who was but a sojourner, asserting his right to a well in the country of Abimelech, and exacting an oath for his security; "because he had digged that well." And Isaac, about 90 years afterwards, reclaimed this his father's property; and, after much contention with the Philistines, was suffered to enjoy it in peace.

All this while the soil and pasture of the earth remained still in common as before, and open to every occupant: except perhaps in the neighbourhood of towns, where the necessity of a sole and exclusive property in lands (for the sake of agriculture) was earlier felt, and therefore more readily complied with. Otherwise, when the multitude of men and cattle had consumed every convenience on one spot of ground, it was deemed a natural right to seize upon and occupy such other lands as would more easily supply their necessities. This practice is still retained among the wild and uncultivated nations that have never been formed into civil states, like the Tartars and others in the east; where the climate itself, and the boundless extent of their territory, conspire to retain them still in the same savage state of vagrant liberty, which was universal in the earliest ages, and which Tacitus informs us continued among the Germans till the decline of the Roman empire. We have also a striking example of the same kind in the history of Abraham and his nephew Lot. When their joint subsistence became so great, that pasture and other conveniences grew scarce, the natural consequence was, that a strife arose between their servants; so that it was no longer practicable to dwell together. This contention Abraham endeavoured to compose: "Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between thee and me. Is not the whole land before thee? Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: If thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left." This plainly implies an acknowledged right, in either, to occupy whatever ground he pleased, that was not pre-occupied by other tribes. "And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, even as the garden of the Lord. Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan, and journeyed east; and Abraham dwelt in the land of Canaan."

Upon the same principle was founded the right of migration, or sending colonies to find out new habitations, when the mother-country was overcharged with inhabitants; which was practised as well by the Phoenicians and Greeks, as the Germans, Scythians, and other northern people. And, so long as it was confined to the stocking and cultivation of desert uninhabited countries, it kept strictly within the limits of the law of nature.

But as the world by degrees grew more populous, it daily became more difficult to find out new spots to inhabit, without encroaching upon former occupants; and by constantly occupying the same individual spot, the fruits of the earth were consumed, and its spontaneous produce destroyed, without any provision for a future supply or succession. It therefore became necessary to pursue some regular method of providing a constant subsistence; and this necessity produced, or at least promoted and encouraged, the art of agriculture. And the art of agriculture, by a regular connection and consequence, introduced and established the idea of a more permanent property in the soil than had hitherto been received and adopted. It was clear that the earth would not produce her fruits in sufficient quantities without the assistance of tillage; but who would be at the pains of tilling it, if another might watch an opportunity to seize upon and enjoy the product of his industry, art, and labour? Had not therefore a separate property in lands, as well as moveables, been vested in some individuals, the world must have continued a forest; and men have been mere animals of prey; which, according to some philosophers, is the genuine state of nature. Whereas now (to graciously has Providence interwoven our duty and our happiness together) the result of this very necessity has been the ennobling of the human species, by giving it opportunities of improving in rational faculties, as well as of exerting its natural. Necessity begat property; and in order to insure that property, recourse was had to civil society, which brought along with it a long train of inseparable concomitants; states, governments, laws, punishments, and the public exercise of religious duties. Thus connected together, it was found that a part only of society was sufficient to provide, by their manual labour, for the necessary subsistence of all; and leisure was given to others to cultivate the human mind, to invent useful arts, and to lay the foundations of science.

The only question remaining is, How this property became actually vested; or what it is that gave a man acquired an exclusive right to retain in a permanent manner, by occupancy, that specific land which before belonged generally to everybody, but particularly to nobody? And as we before observed, that occupancy gave the right to the temporary use of the soil; so it is agreed upon all hands, that occupancy gave also the original right to the permanent property in the fulness of the earth itself, which excludes every one else but the owner from the use of it. There is indeed some difference among the writers on natural law, concerning the reason why occupancy should convey this right, and invest one with this absolute property: Grotius and Puffendorf insisting, that this right of occupancy is founded upon a tacit and implied assent of all mankind, that the first occupant should become the owner; and Barbeyrac, Titus, Mr Locke, and others, holding, that there is no such implied assent, neither is it necessary that there should be; for that the very act of occupancy, alone, being a degree of bodily labour, is from a principle of natural justice, without any consent or compact, sufficient of itself to gain a title. A dispute that favours too much of nice and scholastic refinement. However, both sides agree in this, that occupancy is the thing by which the title was in fact originally gained; every man seizing to his own continued use such spots of ground as he found most agreeable to his own convenience, provided he found them unoccupied by any one else.

Property, both in lands and moveables, being thus by what originally acquired by the first taker, which taking means it is amounts to a declaration, that he intends to appropriate or lost. the thing to his own use, it remains in him, by the principle of universal law, till such time as he does some other act which shows an intention to abandon it; for then it becomes, naturally speaking, publici juris once more, and is liable to be again appropriated. ted by the next occupant. So if one is possessed of a jewel, and casts it into the sea or a public highway, this is such an express dereliction, that a property will be vested in the first fortunate finder that shall seize it to his own use. But if he hides it privately in the earth, or other secret place, and it is discovered, the finder acquires no property therein; for the owner hath not by this act declared any intention to abandon it, but rather the contrary: and if he loses or drops it by accident, it cannot be collected from thence that he designed to quit the possession; and therefore in such case the property still remains in the loser, who may claim it again of the finder. And this, we may remember, is the doctrine of the English law with relation to Treasure-Trove.

But this method, of one man's abandoning his property, and another seizing the vacant possession, however well founded in theory, could not long subsist in fact. It was calculated merely for the rudiments of civil society, and necessarily ceased among the complicated interests and artificial refinements of polite and established governments. In these it was found, that what became inconvenient or useless to one man, was highly convenient and useful to another; who was ready to give in exchange for it some equivalent that was equally desirable to the former proprietor. This mutual convenience introduced commercial traffic, and the reciprocal transfer of property by sale, grant, or conveyance: which may be considered either as a continuance of the original possession which the first occupant had; or as an abandoning of the thing by the present owner, and an immediate successive occupancy of the same by the new proprietor. The voluntary dereliction of the owner, and delivering the possession to another individual, amount to a transfer of the property; the proprietor declaring his intention no longer to occupy the thing himself, but that his own right of occupancy shall be vested in the new acquiror. Or, taken in the other light, if I agree to part with an acre of my land to Titus, the deed of conveyance is an evidence of my intending to abandon the property; and Titus, being the only or first man acquainted with such my intention, immediately steps in and seizes the vacant possession: thus the consent expressed by the conveyance gives Titus a good right against me; and possession or occupancy confirms that right against all the world besides.

The most universal and effectual way of abandoning property is by the death of the occupant: when, both the actual possession and intention of keeping possession ceasing, the property, which is founded upon such possession and intention, ought also to cease of course. For, naturally speaking, the instant a man ceases to be, he ceases to have any dominion: else, if he had a right to dispose of his acquisitions one moment beyond his life, he would also have a right to direct their disposal for a million of ages after him; which would be highly absurd and inconvenient (A). All property must therefore cease upon death, considering men as absolute individuals, and unconnected with civil society: for then, by the principles before established, the next immediate occupant would acquire a right in all that the deceased possessed. But as, under civilized governments, which are calculated for the peace of mankind, such a constitution would be productive of endless disturbances, the universal law of almost every nation (which is a kind of secondary law of nature) has either given the dying person a power of continuing his property, by disposing of its possessions by will; or, in case he neglects to dispose of it, or is not permitted to make any disposition at all, the municipal law of the country then steps in, and declares who shall be the successor, representative, or heir of the deceased; that is, who alone shall have a right to enter upon this vacant possession, in order to avoid that confusion which its becoming again common would occasion. And farther, in case no testament be permitted by the law, or none be made, and no heir can be found so qualified as the law requires, still, to prevent the robust title of occupancy from again taking place, the doctrine of escheats is adopted in almost every country; whereby the sovereign of the state, and those who claim under his authority, are the ultimate heirs, and succeed to those inheritances to which no other title can be formed.

The right of inheritance, or descent to the children and relations of the deceased, seems to have been allowed much earlier than the right of devising by testament. We are apt to conceive at the first view that it has nature on its side; yet we often mistake for nature what we find established by long and inveterate custom. It is certainly a wise and effectual, but clearly a political, establishment; since the permanent right of property, vested in the ancestor himself, was no natural, but merely a civil, right. It is true, that the transmission of one's possessions to posterity has an evident tendency to make a man a good citizen and a useful member of society: it sets the passions on the side of duty, and prompts a man to deserve well of the public, when he is sure that the reward of his services will not die with himself, but be transmitted to those with whom he is connected by the dearest and most tender affections. Yet, reasonable as this foundation of the right of inheritance may seem, it is probable that its immediate origin arose not from speculations altogether so delicate and refined, and, if not from fortuitous circumstances, at least from a plainer and more simple principle. A man's children or nearest relations are usually about him on his death-bed, and are the earliest witnesses of his decease. They became therefore generally the next immediate occupants, till at length in process of time this frequent usage ripened into general law. And therefore also in the earliest ages, on failure of children, a man's servants born under his roof were allowed to be his heirs; being immediately on the spot when he died. For we find the old patriarch Abraham expressly declaring, that "since God had given him no seed, his steward Eliezer, one born in his house, was his heir."

While property continued only for life, testaments were

(A) This right, inconvenient as it certainly is, the law of Scotland gives to every man over his real estate, by authorising him to entail it on his heirs for ever. See Law, clxxx. 9, 10, 11. and Tailzie. Property, were useless and unknown; and when it became inheritable, the inheritance was long indefeasible, and the children or heirs at law were incapable of exclusion by will. Till at length it was found, that to strict a rule of inheritance made heirs disobedient and headstrong, defrauded creditors of their just debts, and prevented many provident fathers from dividing or charging their estates as the exigence of their families required. This introduced pretty generally the right of disposing of one's property, or a part of it, by testament; that is, by written or oral instructions properly witnessed and authenticated, according to the pleasure of the deceased; which we therefore emphatically style his will.

This was established in some countries much later than in others. In England, till modern times, a man could only dispose of one-third of his moveables from his wife and children; and, in general, no will was permitted of lands till the reign of Henry VIII., and then only of a certain portion; for it was not till after the Reformation that the power of devising real property became so universal as at present.

Wills, therefore, and testaments, rights of inheritance, and successions, are all of them creatures of the civil or municipal laws, and accordingly are in all respects regulated by them; every distinct country having different ceremonies and requisites to make a testament completely valid; neither does anything vary more than the right of inheritance under different national establishments. In England particularly, this diversity is carried to such a length, as if it had been meant to point out the power of the laws in regulating the succession to property, and how futile every claim must be that has not its foundation in the positive rules of the state. In personal estates, the father may succeed to his children; in landed property, he cannot be their immediate heir by any remote possibility; in general, only the eldest son, in some places only the youngest, in others all the sons together, have a right to succeed to the inheritance: In real estates, males are preferred to females, and the eldest male will usually exclude the rest; in the division of personal estates, the females of equal degree are admitted together with the males, and no right of primogeniture is allowed.

This one consideration may help to remove the scruples of many well-meaning persons, who set up a mistaken confidence in opposition to the rules of law. If a man disinherits his son, by a will duly executed, and leaves his estate to a stranger, there are many who consider this proceeding as contrary to natural justice; while others so ferulously adhere to the supposed intention of the dead, that if a will of lands be attested by only two witnesses instead of three, which the law requires, they are apt to imagine that the heir is bound in conscience to relinquish his title to the devisee. But both of them certainly proceed upon very erroneous principles: as if, on the one hand, the son had by nature a right to succeed to his father's lands; or as if, on the other hand, the owner was by nature entitled to direct the succession of his property after his own decease. Whereas the law of nature suggests, that on the death of the possessor, the estate should again become common, and be open to the next occupant, unless otherwise ordered, for the sake of civil peace, by the positive law of society. The positive law of society, which is with us the municipal laws of England and Scotland, directs it to vest in such person as the last proprietor shall by will, attended with certain requisites, appoint; and, in defect of such appointment, to go to some particular person, who, from the result of certain local constitutions, appears to be the heir at law. Hence it follows, that, where the appointment is regularly made, there cannot be a shadow of right in any one but the person appointed; and, where the necessary requisites are omitted, the right of the heir is equally strong and built upon as solid a foundation, as the right of the devisee would have been, supposing such requisites were observed.

But, after all, there are some few things, which, notwithstanding the general introduction and continuance of property, must still unavoidably remain in common; being such wherein nothing but an usufructuary property is capable of being had: and therefore they still belong to the first occupant, during the time he holds possession of them, and no longer. Such (among others) are the elements of light, air, and water; which a man may occupy by means of his windows, his gardens, his mills, and other conveniences; such also are the generality of those animals which are said to be free nature, or of a wild and untameable disposition; which any man may seize upon and keep for his own use or pleasure. All these things, so long as they remain in possession, every man has a right to enjoy without disturbance; but if once they escape from his custody, or he voluntarily abandons the use of them, they return to the common stock, and any other man has an equal right to seize and enjoy them afterwards.

Again, there are other things in which a permanent property may subsist, not only as to the temporary use, but also the solid substance; and which yet would be frequently found without a proprietor, had not the wisdom of the law provided a remedy to obviate this inconvenience. Such are forests and other waste grounds, which were omitted to be appropriated in the general distribution of lands; such also are wrecks, estrays, and that species of wild animals, which the arbitrary constitutions of positive law have distinguished from the rest by the well-known appellation of game. With regard to these and some others, as disturbances and quarrels would frequently arise among individuals contending about the acquisition of this species of property by first occupancy, the law has therefore wisely cut up the root of diffusion, by vesting the things themselves in the sovereign of the state; or else in its representatives appointed and authorized by him, being usually the lords of manors. And thus our legislature has universally promoted the grand ends of civil society, the peace and security of individuals, by steadily pursuing that wise and orderly maxim, of assigning to every thing capable of ownership a legal and determinate owner.

In this age of paradox and innovation, much has been said of liberty and equality; and some few have contended for an equalization of property. One of those who contended for the wildest declaimers on this subject, who is for abolishing property altogether, has (inadvertently we suppose) given a complete confutation, not only of his own arguments, but also of the arguments of all who have Property, have written, or, we think, can write, on the same side of the question. After labouring to prove that it is gross injustice in any man to retain more than is absolutely necessary to supply him with food, clothes, and shelter, this zealous reformer states an objection to his theory, arising from the well-known allurements of sloth, which, if the accumulation of property were not permitted, would banish industry from the whole world.

The objection he urges fairly, and answers it thus: "It may be observed, that the equality for which we are pleading is an equality that would succeed to a state of great intellectual improvement. So bold a revolution cannot take place in human affairs, till the general mind has been highly cultivated. The present age of mankind is greatly enlightened; but it is to be feared is not yet enlightened enough. Hasty and undigested tumults may take place, under the idea of an equalization of property; but it is only a calm and clear conviction of justice, of justice mutually to be rendered and received, of happiness to be produced by the deference of our most rooted habits, that can introduce an invariable system of this sort. Attempts without this preparation will be productive only of confusion. Their effect will be momentary, and a new and more barbarous inequality will succeed. Each man with unaltered appetite will watch his opportunity to gratify his love of power, or his love of distinction, by usurping on his inattentive neighbours."

These are just observations, and such as we have often made to ourselves on the various proposed reformations of government. The illumination which the author requires before he would introduce his abolition of property, would constitute men more than angels; for to be under the influence of no passion or appetite, and to be guided in every action by unmixed benevolence and pure intellect, is a degree of perfection which we can attribute to no being inferior to God. But it is the object of the greater part of this writer's book to prove that all men must arrive at such perfection before his ideal republic can contribute to their happiness; and therefore every one who is conscious of being at any time swayed by passion, and who feels that he is more attached to his wife or children than to strangers, will look without envy to the present inequalities of property and power, if he be an intelligent disciple of Mr Godwin.

Literary Property. See Copy-Right.

PROPHECY is a word derived from προφητεία, and in its original import signifies the prediction of future events.

As God alone can perceive with certainty the future actions of free agents, and the remote consequences of those laws of nature which he himself established, prophecy, when clearly fulfilled, affords the most convincing evidence of an intimate and supernatural communion between God and the person who uttered the prediction. Together with the power of working miracles, it is indeed the only evidence which can be given of such a communion. Hence among the professors of every religious system, except that which is called the religion of nature, there have been numberless pretenders to the gift of prophecy. The Pagan nations of antiquity had their oracles, augurs, and foreshowers. Modern idolaters have their necromancers and diviners; and the Jews, Christians, and Mahometans, have their seers and prophets.

The ill-founded pretensions of paganism, ancient and modern, have been exposed under various articles of this work. (See Divination, Magic, Necromancy, and Mythology). And the claims of the Arabian impostor are examined under the articles Alcoran and Mahometanism; so that at present we have only to consider the use, intent, and truth, of the Jewish and Christian prophecies.

Previous to our entering on this investigation, it may be proper to observe, that in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the signification of the word prophecy is not always confined to the foretelling of future events. In several instances it is of the same import with preaching, and denotes the faculty of illustrating and applying to present practical purposes the doctrines of prior revelation. Thus in Nehemiah it is said, "Thou hast appointed prophets to preach;" and Ch. vii, whoever speakest unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort, is by St Paul called a prophet. Hence it was that there were schools of prophets in Israel, where young men were instructed in the truths of religion, and fitted to exhort and comfort the people.

In this article, however, it is chiefly of importance to confine ourselves to that kind of prophecy which, in declaring truths either past, present, or future, required the immediate inspiration of God.

Every one who looks into the history of the world must observe, that the minds of men have from the beginning been gradually opened by a train of events still improving upon, and adding light to each other; as that of each individual is, by proceeding from the first elements and seeds of science, to more enlarged views, and a still higher growth. Mankind neither are nor ever have been capable of entering into the depths of knowledge at once; of receiving a whole system of natural or moral truths together; but must be let into them by degrees, and have them communicated by little and little, as they are able to bear it. That this is the case with respect to human science, is a fact which cannot be questioned; and there is as little room to question it with respect to the progress of religious knowledge among men, either taken collectively or in each individual. Why the case is thus in both, why all are not adult at once in body and mind, is a question which the religion of nature is equally called upon with revelation to answer. The fact may not be easily accounted for, but the reality of it is incontrovertible.

Accordingly, the great object of the several revelations recorded in the Old Testament was evidently to keep alive a sense of religion in the minds of men, and to train them by degrees for the reception of those simple but sublime truths by which they were to be saved. The notions which the early descendants of Adam entertained of the Supreme Being, and of the relation in which they stood to him, were probably very grofs; and we see them gradually refined by a series of revelations or prophecies, each in succession more explicit than that by which it was preceded, till the advent of Him who was the way, the truth, and the life, and who brought to light life and immortality.

When a revelation was made of any important truth, the grounds of which the mind of man has not facul- ties to comprehend, that revelation, though undoubtedly a prophecy, must have been so far from confirming the truth of revealed religion in general, that it could not gain credit itself, but by some extrinsic evidence that it came indeed from God. Hence we find Moses, after it was revealed to him from the burning bush that he should deliver his countrymen from Egyptian bondage, replying, "Behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken to my voice; for they will say, the Lord hath not appeared unto thee." This revelation certainly constituted him a prophet to Israel; and there cannot be a doubt but that he perfectly knew the divine source from which he received it: but he very naturally and reasonably concluded, that the children of Israel would not believe that the Lord had appeared to him, unless he could give them some other proof of this supernatural appearance than his own simple affirmation of its reality. This proof he was immediately enabled to give, by having conferred upon him the power of working miracles in confirmation of his prophecy. Again, when Gideon was called to the deliverance of Israel, the angel of the Lord came and said unto him, "The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of valour: go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites. Have not I sent thee?" Here was a prophecy delivered by the angel of the Lord to encourage Gideon's undertaking: but he, being probably afraid of some illusion of sense or imagination, demanded a sign that he was really an angel who talked with him. A sign is accordingly given him, a miraculous sign, with which he is satisfied, and undertakes the work appointed him.

From these and many similar transactions recorded in the Old Testament, it appears that prophecy was never intended as evidence of an original revelation. It is indeed, by its very nature, totally unfit for such a purpose; because it is impossible, without some extrinsic proof of its divine origin, to know whether any prophecy be true or false, till the era arrive at which it ought to be fulfilled. When it is fulfilled, it affords complete evidence that he who uttered it spoke by the spirit of God, and that the doctrines which he taught of a religious nature, were all either dictated by the same spirit, or at least are true, and calculated to direct mankind in the way of their duty.

The prophecies which passed to the patriarchs in the most early periods of the world, were all intended to keep alive in their minds a sense of religion, and to direct their views to the future completion of that first and greatest prophecy which was made to Adam immediately on his fall: but in order to secure credit to those prophecies themselves, they were always accompanied by some miraculous sign that they were indeed given by the God of truth, and not the delusions of fanaticism or hypocrisy. Prophecy, in the proper sense of the word, commenced with the fall; and the first instance of it is implied in the sentence denounced upon the original deceiver of mankind; "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

This prophecy, though one of the most important that ever was delivered, when considered by itself, is exceedingly obscure. That Adam should have under-stood it, as some of his degenerate sons have pretended to do, in a literal sense, is absolutely impossible. He knew well that it was the great God of heaven and earth who was speaking, and that such a Being was incapable of trifling with the wretchedness of his fallen creature. The sentence denounced upon himself and his wife was awful and severe. The woman was doomed to sorrow in conception; the man to sorrow and travel all the days of his life. The ground was cursed for his sake; and the end of the judgment was, "Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return." Had our first parents been thus left, they must have looked upon themselves as rejected by their Maker, delivered up to trouble and sorrow in the world, and as having no hope in any other. With such impressions on their minds they could have retained no sense of religion; for religion, when unaccompanied by hope, is a state of frenzy and distraction: yet it is certain that they could have no hope from anything expressly recorded by Moses, except what they might draw from this sentence passed on their deceiver. Let us then endeavour to ascertain what consolation it could afford them.

At that awful juncture, they must have been sensible that their fall was the victory of the serpent, whom by experience they had found to be an enemy to God and to man. It could not therefore but be some comfort to them to hear this enemy first condemned, and to see that, however he had prevailed against them, he had gained no victory over their Maker. By his condemnation they were secured from thinking that there was any malignant being equal to the Creator in power and dominion; an opinion which, through the prevalence of evil, gained ground in after times, and was destructive of all true religion. The belief of God's supreme dominion being thus preserved, it was still necessary to give them such hopes as might induce them to love as well as to fear him; and these they could not but conceive when they heard from the mouth of their Creator and Judge, that the serpent's victory was not complete even over themselves; that they and their posterity should be enabled to contest his empire; and that though they were to suffer much in the struggle, they should yet finally prevail, bruise the serpent's head, and deliver themselves from his power and dominion.

This prophecy therefore was to our first parents a light shining in a dark place. All that they could certainly conclude from it was, that their case was not desperate; that some remedy, some deliverance from the evil they were under, would in time appear; but when or where, or by what means they were to be delivered, they could not possibly understand, unless the matter was further revealed to them, as probably it was at the institution of sacrifice (See Sacrifice). Obscure, however, as this promise or prophecy was, it served after the fall as a foundation for religion, and trust and confidence towards God in hopes of deliverance in time from the evils of disobedience: and this appears to have been the sole purpose for which it was given, and not as some well-meaning though weak advocates for Christianity have imagined, as a prediction pointing directly to the cross of Christ.

As this prophecy was the first, so is it the only considerable one in which we have any concern from the creation to the days of Noah. It was proportioned to the then wants and necessities of the world, and was the grand charter of God's mercy after the fall. Nature had Prophecy had no certain help for sinners; her rights were lost with her innocence. It was therefore necessary either to destroy the offenders, or to raise them to a capacity of salvation, by giving them such hopes as might enable them to exercise a reasonable religion. So far the light of this prophecy extended. By what means God intended to work their salvation, he did not expressly declare: and who has a right to complain that he did not, or to prescribe to him rules in dispensing his mercy to the children of men?

Upon the hopes of mercy which this prophecy gives in very general terms, mankind waited till the birth of Noah. At that period a new prophecy was delivered by Lamech, who foretells that his son should comfort them concerning the work and toil of their hands, "because of the earth which the Lord had cursed." We are to remember that the curse pronounced upon the earth was part of the sentence passed upon our first parents; and when that part was remitted, if it ever was remitted, mankind would acquire new and more lively hopes that in God's good time they should be freed from the whole. But it has been shown by bishop Sherlock*, that this declaration of Lamech's was a prediction, that during the life of his son the curse should be taken off from the earth: and the same prelate has proved with great perspicuity, and in the most satisfactory manner, that this happy revolution actually took place after the flood. The limits prescribed to an article of this kind will not permit us even to abridge his arguments.

We shall only observe, that the truth of his conclusion is manifest from the very words of scripture; for when God informs Noah of his design to destroy the world, he adds, "But with thee will I establish my covenant;" and as soon as the deluge was over, he declared that he "would not again curse the ground any more for man's sake;" but that while the earth should remain, seed-time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, should not cease." From this last declaration it is apparent that a curse had been on the earth, and that seed-time and harvest had often failed; that the curse was now taken off; and that in consequence of this covenant, as it is called, with Noah and his seed and with every living creature, mankind should not henceforth be subjected to toil so severe and so generally fruitless.

It may seem surprising perhaps to some, that after so great a revolution in the world as the deluge made, God should say nothing to the remnant of mankind of the punishments and rewards of another life, but should make a new covenant with them relating merely to fruitful seasons and the blessings of the earth. But in the scriptures we see plainly a gradual working of providence towards the redemption of the world from the curse of the fall; that the temporal blessings were first restored as an earnest and pledge of better things to follow; and that the covenant given to Noah had, strictly speaking, nothing to do with the hopes of futurity, which were referred to be the matter of another covenant, in another age, and to be revealed by him, whose province it was to "bring life and immortality to light through the gospel." But if Noah and his forefathers expected deliverance from the whole curse of the fall, the actual deliverance from one part of it was a very good pledge of a further deliverance to be expected in time. Man himself was cursed as well as the ground; he was doomed to dust; and fruitful seasons are but a small relief, compared to the greatness of his loss. But when fruitful seasons came, and one part of the curse was evidently abated, it gave great assurance that the other should not last for ever, but that by some means, still unknown to them, they should be freed from the whole, and finally bruise the serpent's head, who, at the deluge, had so severely bruised man's heel.

Upon this assurance mankind relied for some generations, and practised, as we have every reason to believe, a rational worship to the one God of the universe. At last, however, idolatry was by some means or other introduced (see Polytheism), and spread so universally through the world, that true religion would in all probability have entirely failed, had not God visibly imposed to preserve such a sense of it as was necessary for the accomplishment of his great design to restore mankind. This he did by calling Abraham from amidst his idolatrous kindred, and renewing to him the word of Abraham's prophecy: "Get thee out of thy country (said he), and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee. And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed." These magnificent promises are several times repeated to the father of the faithful with additional circumstances of great importance, such as, "that he should be multiplied exceedingly; that he should be a father of many nations; that kings should come out of him;" and above all, that God would establish an everlasting covenant with him and his seed, to give him and them all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and to be their God."

Upon such of these promises as relate to temporal blessings we need not dwell. They are much of the same nature with those which had been given before to Lamech, Noah, Shem, and Japheth; and all the world knows how amply and literally they have been fulfilled. There was however so little probability in nature of their accomplishment at the time when they were made, that we find the patriarch asking "Whereby he should know† that he should inherit such an extent of country?" And as the promises that he should inherit it were meant to be a foundation for religion and confidence in God, a miraculous sign was given him that they came indeed from the spirit of truth. This removed from his mind every doubt, and made him give the fullest credit, not only to them, but also to that other promise, "that in his seed should all the nations of the earth be blessed."

What distinct notion he had of this blessing, or in what manner he hoped it should be effected, we cannot pretend to say. "But that he understood it to be a promise of restoring mankind, and delivering them from the remaining curse of the fall, there can be no doubt. He knew that death had entered by sin; he knew that God had promised victory and redemption to the seed of the woman. Upon the hopes of this restoration the religion of his ancestors was founded; and when God, from whom this blessing on all men was expected, did expressly promise a blessing on all men, and in this promise founded his everlasting covenant—what could Abraham else expect but the completion in his seed of that ancient promise and prophecy concerning the victory Prophecy to be obtained by the woman's seed? The curse of the ground was expiated in the flood, and the earth restored with a blessing, which was the foundation of the temporal covenant with Noah; a large share of which God expressly grants to Abraham and his posterity particularly, together with a promise to bring, by their means, a new and further blessing upon the whole race of men. If we lay these things to heart, we cannot suppose that less could be expected from the new promise or prophecy given to Abraham than a deliverance from that part of the curse still remaining on men: "Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return." In virtue of this covenant Abraham and his posterity had reason to expect that the time would come when man should be called from his dust again. For this expectation they had his assurance who gave the covenant, that he would be their God for ever. Well might our Saviour then tell the sons of Abraham, that even Moses at the bush showed the resurrection of the dead, when he called the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.*

These promises made to Abraham were renewed to Isaac and Jacob; to the last of whom it was revealed, not only that all the nations of the earth should be blest in his seed, but that the blessing should spring from his son Judah. It is, however, by no means evident that any one of those patriarchs knew precisely by what means (a) the curse of the fall was to be entirely removed, and all men called from their dust again. It was enough that they were convinced of the fact in general terms, since such conviction was a sufficient foundation of a rational religion; and the descendants of Abraham had no other foundation upon which to rest their hopes, and pay a cheerful worship to the God of their fathers, till the giving of the law to Moses. Then indeed they were incorporated into a society with municipal laws of their own and placed under a theocratic government; the temporal promises made to their fathers were amply fulfilled; religion was maintained among them by rewards and punishments equally distributed in this world (see Theology); and a series of prophets succeeding one another pointed out with greater and greater clearness, as the fulness of time approached, the person who was to redeem mankind from the power of death; by what means he was to work that great redemption, and at what precise period he was to make his appearance in the world. By these supernatural interpretations of divine providence, the principles of pure theism and the practice of true religion were preserved among the children of Israel, when all other nations were sunk in the grossest idolatry, and wallowed in the most abominable vices; when the far-famed Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, fell down with adoration to stocks and stones and the vilest reptiles; and when Prophecy they had no well-grounded hope of another life, and were in fact without God in the world.

From this short deduction, we think ourselves intitled to conclude, that the primary use and intent of prophecy, under the various dispensations of the Old Testament, was not, as is too often supposed, to establish the religion, divine mission of Jesus Christ, but to keep alive in the minds of those to whom it was given, a tenue of religion, and a hope of future deliverance from the curse of the fall. It was, in the expressive language of St Peter, "a light that shone in a dark place, unto which men did well to take heed until the day dawned and the day-star arose in their hearts." But though this was certainly the original intent of prophecy (for Christ, had he never been foretold, would have proved himself to be the Son of God with power by his astonishing miracles, and his resurrection from the dead), yet it cannot be denied, that a long series of prophecies, given in different and far distant ages, and having all their completion in the life, death, and resurrection, of Jesus, concur very forcibly with the evidence of miracles to prove that he was the seed of the woman ordained to bruise the head of the serpent, and restore man to his forfeited inheritance. To the Jews the force of this evidence must have been equal, if not superior, to that of miracles themselves; and therefore we find the Apostles and first preachers of the gospel, in their addresses to them, constantly appealing to the law and the prophets, whilst they urged upon the Gentiles the evidence of miracles.

In order to form a right judgment of the argument for the truth of Christianity drawn from the sure word of prophecy, we must not consider the prophecies given in the Old Testament as so many predictions only independent of each other; for if we do, we shall totally lose sight of the purpose for which they were originally given, and shall never be able to satisfy ourselves when confronted by the objections of unbelievers. It is easy for men of leisure and tolerable parts to find difficulties in particular predictions, and in the application of them made by writers, who lived many hundred years ago, and who had many ancient books and records of the Jewish church, from which they drew many passages, and perhaps some prophecies; which books and records we have not to enable us to understand, and to justify their applications. But it is not so easy a matter to show, or to persuade the world to believe, that a chain of prophecies reaching through several thousand years, delivered at different times, yet manifestly subservient to one and the same administration of providence from beginning to end, is the effect of art and contrivance and religious fraud. In examining the several prophecies

(a) This they certainly could not know from the promises expressed in the very general terms in which they are recorded in the book of Genesis. It is, however, not improbable that those promises, as they immediately received them, were conceived in terms more precise and particular; and, at all events, Dr Warburton has proved to the full conviction of every man who is not a determined unbeliever, that Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son Isaac, not only as a trial of his obedience, but also that God might give him what he earnestly desired, a scintillating representation of the means by which mankind were to be redeemed from death. The learned writer thinks, and his reasoning compels us to think with him, that to this transaction our Saviour alludes when he says, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad." Prophecy, cites recorded in the Old Testament, we are not to suppose that each of them expressly pointed out and clearly characterized Jesus Christ. Had they done so, instead of being a support to religion in general, the purpose for which they were originally intended, they would have had a very different effect, by making those to whom they were given repine at being placed under dispensations so very inferior to that of the gospel. We are therefore to inquire only whether all the notices, which, in general and often metaphorical terms, God gave to the fathers of his intended salvation, are perfectly answered by the coming of Christ; and we shall find that nothing has been promised with respect to that subject which has not been performed in the amplest manner. If we examine the prophecies in this manner, we shall find that there is not one of them, which the Apostles have applied to the Messiah, that is not applicable in a rational and important sense to something in the birth, life, preaching, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth; that as applied to him they are all consistent with each other; and that though some few of them may be applied without absurdity to persons and events under the Jewish dispensation, Christ is the only person that ever existed in whom they all meet as in a centre. In the limits prescribed us, it is impossible that we should enter upon a particular proof of this position. It has been proved by numberless writers, and, with respect to the most important prophecies, by none with greater success than bishop Sherlock in his Use and Intent of Prophecy in the several ages of the world; a work which we recommend to our readers as one of the most valuable on the subject in our own or any other language.

But admitting that it would have been improper, for the reasons already hinted at, to have given a clear and precise description of Christ, and the Christian dispensation, to men who were ordained to live under dispensations less perfect, how, it may be asked, comes it to pass that many of the prophecies applied by the writers of the gospel to our Saviour and his actions are still dark and obscure, and so far from belonging evidently to him and to him only, that it requires much learning and sagacity to show even now the connection between some prophecies and the events?

In answer to these questions, the learned prelate just referred to observes, "That the obscurity of prophecy does not arise from hence, that it is a relation or description of something future; for it is easy to speak of things future plainly, and intelligibly, as it is of things past or present. It is not, therefore, of the nature of prophecy to be obscure; for it may easily be made, when he who gives it thinks fit, as plain as history. On the other side, a figurative and dark description of a future event will be figurative and dark till when the event happens; and consequently will have all the obscurity of a figurative and dark description as well after as before the event. The prophet Isaiah describes the peace of Christ's kingdom in the following manner: 'The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion, and the fatling, together, and a little child shall lead them.' Nobody, some modern Jews excepted, ever understood this literally; nor can it now be literally applied to the state of the gospel. It was and is capable of different interpretations; it may mean temporal peace, or that internal and spiritual peace—that tranquillity of mind, which sets a man at peace with God, himself, and the world. But whatever the true meaning is, this prophecy does no more obtrude one determinate sense upon the mind since the coming of Christ than it did before. But then we say, the state of the gospel was very properly prefigured in this description, and is as properly prefigured in a hundred more of the like kind; and since they all agree in a fair application to the state of the gospel, we strongly conclude, that this state was the thing foretold under such expressions. So that the argument from prophecy for the truth of Christianity does not rest on this, that the event has necessarily limited and ascertained the particular sense and meaning of every prophecy; but in this, that every prophecy has in a proper sense been completed by the coming of Christ. It is absurd, therefore, to expect clear and evident conviction from every single prophecy applied to Christ; the evidence must arise from a view and comparison of all together." It is doubtless a great mistake to suppose that prophecy was intended solely or chiefly for their sakes in whose time the events predicted are to happen. What great occasion is there to lay in so long beforehand the evidence of prophecy to convince men of things that are to happen in their own times; the truth of which they may, if they please, learn from their own senses? Yet some people are apt to talk as if they thought the truth of the events predicted depended very much on the evidence of prophecy: they speak, for instance, as if they imagined the certainty and reality of our Saviour's resurrection were much concerned in the clearness of the prophecies relating to that great and wonderful event, and seem to think that they are confusing the truth of his resurrection when they are pointing out the absurdity of the prophecies relating to it. But can anything be more absurd? For what ground or pretence is there to inquire whether the prophecies foretelling that the Messiah should die and rise again do truly belong to Christ, unless we are first satisfied that Christ died and rose again?

The part which unbelievers ought to take in this question, if they would make any use of prophecy, should be, to show from the prophecies that Christ was necessarily to rise from the dead; and then to prove that in fact Jesus never did rise. Here would be a plain consequence. But if they like not this method, they ought to let the prophecies alone; for if Christ did not rise, there is no harm done though the prophecies have not foretold it. And if they allow the resurrection of Christ, what do they gain by discrediting the prophecies? The event will be what it is, let the prophecies be what they will.

These considerations show how far the gospel is necessarily concerned in prophetical evidence, and how clear the prophecies should be. Christ claims to be the person foretold in the law and the prophets; and as truth must ever be consistent with itself, this claim must be true as well as all others. This is the part then to be tried on the evidence of prophecy: Is Christ that person described and foretold under the Old Testament or not? Whether all the prophecies relating to him be plain or not plain, it matters little; the single question is, Are there enough plain to show us that Christ is the person foretold under the Old Testament? If there be, Prophecy we are at an end of our inquiry, and want no farther help from prophecy; especially since we have seen the day dawn and enjoyed the marvellous light of the gospel of God.

But so unreasonable are unbelievers, that whilst some of them object to the obscurity of the prophecies, others have rejected them altogether on account of their clearness, pretending that they are histories and not predictions. The prophecies against which this objection has been chiefly urged are those of Daniel, which were first called in question by the famous Porphyry. He affirmed that they were not composed by Daniel, whose name they bear, but by some author who lived in Judea about the time of Antiochus Epiphanes; because all to that time contained true history, but that all the facts beyond that were manifestly false.

This method of opposing the prophecies, as a father of the church rightly observes, is the strongest testimony of their truth: for they are so exactly fulfilled, that to infidels the prophet seemed not to have foretold things future, but to have related things past. To an infidel of this age, if he has the same ability and knowledge of history that Porphyry had, all the subsequent prophecies of Daniel, except those which are still fulfilling, would appear to be history and not prophecy: for it entirely overthrows the notion of their being written in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, or of the Maccabees, and establishes the credit of Daniel as a prophet beyond contradiction, that there are several of those prophecies which have been fulfilled since that period as well as before; nay, that there are prophecies of Daniel which are fulfilling at this very time in the world.

Our limits will not permit us to enter into the objections which have been made to this prophet by the author of The Literal Scheme of Prophecy considered; nor is there occasion that we should enter into them. They have been all examined and completely answered by Bishop Chandler in his Vindication of his Defence of Christianity, by Mr Samuel Chandler in his Vindication of the Antiquity and Authority of Daniel's Prophecies, and by Bishop Newton in his excellent Dissertations on the Prophecies. To these authors we refer the reader; and shall conclude the present article with a view of some prophecies given in very remote ages, which are in this age receiving their accomplishment.

Of these the first is that of Noah concerning the ferocity of the posterity of Canaan. In the greater part of original manuscripts, and in our version of the holy scriptures, this prophecy is thus expressed: "Curse he Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren;" but in the Arabic version, and in some copies of the Septuagint, it is, "Curse be Ham the father of Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren." Whether the curse was really pronounced upon Ham, which we think most probable, or only upon his son Canaan, we shall find the prediction remarkably fulfilled, not barely ages after the book of Genesis was very generally known, but also at this very day. It is needless to inform any man who has but looked into the Old Testament, that when the ancient patriarchs pronounced either a curse or a blessing upon any of their sons, they meant to declare the future fortunes, not of that son individually, but of his descendants as a tribe or a nation. Let us keep this in mind, and proceed to compare with Noah's prophecy first Prophecy, the fortunes of the descendants of Canaan, the fourth son of Ham, and then the fortunes of the posterity of Ham by his other sons.

With the fate of the Canaanites every reader is acquainted. They were conquered by Joshua several centuries after the delivery of this prophecy; and such of them as were not exterminated were by him and Solomon reduced to a state of the lowest servitude to the Philistines, the posterity of Shem the brother of Ham. The Greeks and Romans, too, who were the descendants of Japheth, not only subdued Syria and Palestine, but also pursued and conquered such of the Canaanites as were anywhere remaining, as for instance the Tyrians and Carthaginians, of whom the former were ruined by Alexander and the Grecians, and the latter by Scipio and the Romans. Nor did the effects of the curse stop there. The miserable remainder of that devoted people have been ever since slaves to a foreign yoke; first to the Saracens who are descended from Shem, and afterwards to the Turks who are descended from Japheth; and under the Turkish dominion they groan at this day.

If we take the prophecy as it stands in the Arabic version, its accomplishment is still more remarkable. The whole continent of Africa was peopled principally by the posterity of Ham. And for how many ages have the better parts of that country lain under the domination first of the Romans, then of the Saracens, and now of the Turks? In what wickedness, ignorance, barbarity, slavery, and misery, live most of its inhabitants? and of the poor negroes how many thousands are every year sold and bought like beasts in the market, and conveyed from one quarter of the world to do the work of beasts in another; to the full accomplishment indeed of the prophecy, but to the lasting disgrace of those who are from the love of gain the instruments of fulfilling it. Nothing can be more complete than the execution of the sentence as well upon Ham as upon Canaan; and the hardiest infidel will not dare to say that it was pronounced after the event.

The next prophecy which we shall notice is that of Abraham concerning the multitude of his descendants; which every one knows is still fulfilled in the Jews even in their dispersed state, and therefore cannot have been given after the event of which it speaks.

Of the same kind are the several prophecies concerning Ishmael; of which some have been fulfilled, and others are at present fulfilling in the most astonishing manner. Of this son of Abraham it was foretold, that "he should be a wild man; that his hand should be against every man, and every man's hand against him; that he should dwell in the presence of all his brethren; that he should be multiplied exceedingly, beget twelve princes, and become a great nation." The sacred historian who records these prophecies adds, that "God was with the lad, and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer."

To show how fully and literally all these prophecies have been accomplished, would require more room than we have to bestow; and to the reader of history the labour would be superfluous. We shall therefore only request the unbeliever to attend to the history of the Arabs, the undoubted descendants of Ishmael; and to say how it comes to pass, that though they have been robbers by land and pirates by sea for time immemo- Lord their God, and David their king; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days (a). In this passage we find the state of the Jews for the last 1700 years clearly and distinctly described with all its circumstances. From the time that they rejected their Messiah all things began to work towards the destruction of their polities both civil and religious; and within a few years from his death, their city, temple, and government, were utterly ruined; and they themselves, not carried into a gentle captivity, to enjoy their laws, and live under governors of their own as they did in Babylon, but they were sold like beasts in a market, and became slaves in the strictest sense; and from that day to this have had neither prince nor chief among them. Nor will any one of them ever be able, after all their pretences, to prove his descent from Aaron, or to lay with certainty whether he is of the tribe of Judah or of the tribe of Levi, till he shall discover that unknown country where never mankind dwelt, and where the apocryphal Esdras has placed their brethren of the ten tribes. This being the case, it is impossible they can have either an altar, or a sacrifice, or a priesthood, according to the institution of Moses, but are evidently an outcast people living under laws which cannot be fulfilled.

The cause of this deplorable condition is likewise affixed with the same perspicuity: They are scattered over the face of the earth, because they do not acknowledge Christ for the Messiah; because they do not submit to their own king, the true David. In the prophetic writings the name of David is frequently given to the Messiah, who was to descend from that prince. Thus Ezekiel, speaking of the kingdom of Christ, says, "I will set up one Shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd." And Jeremiah says, "They shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them."

That in these places, as well as in the passage under consideration, the Messiah is meant, is undeniable; for David the son of Jesse was dead long before any of the three prophets was born; and by none of them it is said, "afterwards David their king shall come again;" but "afterwards the children of Israel shall return to David their king," they shall recover from their blind infatuation, and seek him whom they have not yet known. By their not receiving Jesus for the Christ, they have forfeited all claim to the divine favour, and are, of consequence, "without a king, and without a chief, and without a sacrifice, and without an altar, and without a priesthood."

The time, however, will come, when they shall return and seek "the Lord their God and David their king;" when they shall tremble before him whom their forefathers crucified, and honour the Son even as they honour the Father. That this part of the prophecy will in time be as completely fulfilled as the other has been, may be confidently expected from the wonderful preservation of the Jews for so many ages. Scattered as they

(b) Such is our translation of this remarkable prophecy; but the Greek version of the Seventy has it, perhaps more properly, thus: "The children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a chief, and without sacrifice, and without an altar, and without a priesthood, and without prophecies. Afterwards," &c. Prophecy they are over the whole earth, and hated as they are by all nations, it might naturally be thought, that in process of time they would have coalesced with their conquerors, and have been ultimately absorbed and annihilated by the union, so that not a trace of them should now have remained; yet the fact is, that, dispersed as they have ever since been over the whole face of the globe, they have never, in a single instance in any country, lost their religious or national distinctions; and they are now generally supposed to be as numerous as they were under the reigns of David and Solomon. This is contrary to all history, and all experience of the course of human affairs in similar cases; it has been boldly and justly styled a standing miracle. Within 1000 or 1200 years back, a great variety of extraordinary and important revolutions have taken place among the nations of Europe. In the southern part of this island the Britons were conquered by the Saxons, the Saxons by the Danes, and the Danes and Saxons by the Normans; but in a few centuries these opposite and hostile nations were consolidated into one indistinguishable mass. Italy, about the same time that Britain was subdued by the Saxons, was conquered by the Goths and Vandals; and it is not easy to conceive a more striking contrast than that which subsisted between the polished inhabitants of that delightful country and their savage invaders; and yet how soon did all distinction cease between them! In France, the Roman colonies gradually assimilated with the ancient Gauls; and in Spain, though the Moors continued for several ages, and till their final expulsion, a distinct people, yet after they were once reduced to a state of subjection, their numbers very sensibly diminished; and such of them as were suffered to remain after their last overthrow have been long since blended with the Spaniards that they cannot now be distinguished. But with regard to the Jews, the wonder is, that though they do not in any country where they are settled bear any proportion to the natural inhabitants, though they are universally reduced to a state of the lowest subjection, and even exposed to hatred, contempt, and persecution; yet in no instance does there seem to be the least appearance or probability of their numbers being diminished, in no instance do they discover any decay of attachment to their religious principles. Whence then comes it that this people alone, who, having no form of government or a republic anywhere subsisting, are without the means by which other people are kept united and distinct, should still be preserved amongst so many different nations? How comes it, when they have been thus scattered into so many distant corners, like dust which cannot be perceived, that they should still so long survive the dissolution of their own state, as well as that of so many others? To these questions the answer is obvious: They are preserved, that, as a nation, "they may return and seek the Lord their God and David their king, and fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days."

We might here subject many prophecies both from the Old and the New Testament, and especially from the writings of St Paul and St John, which so clearly describe the various fortunes of the Christian church, her progress to that state of general corruption under which she was sunk three centuries ago, and her gradual restoration to her primitive purity, that they cannot be supposed to proceed from the cunning craftiness of men, or to have been written after the events of prophecy, which they speak. To do justice to these, however, would require a volume, and many excellent volumes have been written upon them. The reader who wishes for satisfaction on so interesting a subject will do well to consult the writings of Mr Mede and Sir Isaac Newton, together with Bishop Newton's Dissertations, and the Sermons of Hurd, Halifax, and Bagot, preached at Warburton's lecture. We shall only observe, that one of the ablest reasoners that Great Britain ever produced, after having paid the closest attention to the predictions of the New Testament, hath been bold enough to put the truth of revealed religion itself upon the reality of that prophetic spirit which foretold the desolation of Christ's church and kingdom by antichrist. "If (says he), in the days of St Paul and St John, there was any footstep of such a sort of power as this in the world; or if there had been any such power in the world; or if there was then any appearance or probability that could make it enter into the heart of man to imagine that there ever could be any such kind of power in the world, much less in the temple or church of God; and if there be not now such a power actually and conspicuously exercised in the world; and if any picture of this power, drawn after the event, can now describe it more plainly and exactly than it was originally described in the words of the prophecy—then may it, with some degree of plausibility, be suggested, that the prophecies are nothing more than enthusiastic imaginations."

Upon the whole, we conclude with Bishop Sherlock, that the various prophecies recorded in the Holy Scriptures were given, not to enable man to foresee with clearness future events, but to support the several dispensations of religion under which they were respectively promulgated. The principal prophecies recorded in the Old Testament led mankind to hope for a complete deliverance from the curse of the fall; and therefore tended to fill their minds with gratitude, and to enforce a cheerful obedience to that God who in the midst of judgment remembereth mercy. The prophecies, whether in the Old or New Testament, that portray the present state of the Jews, and the various fortunes of the Christian church, as they are daily fulfilling in the presence of all men, are the strongest possible proof of the divinity of our holy religion, and supply to us in the latter days the place of miracles, by which it was at first established.