eas oa 
nown toa 
death. Mr, Callin’  earh objedtion i is, that Daniel is omit- 
ts, enumerated in Ecclefiatticus, where 
catalogue of the Jewifh canonical aes others are omitted 
befides Daniel. No mention is made 2 Job and Ezra, and 
of the books under their name. of greater ea 
ance, that Daniel is propofed (1 Maceab. ii. 60.) as a pat- 
tern by the father of the Maccabees, and his Sifdom? as 
we have already feen, is highly extolled by Ezekiel; and 
there are fufficient teftimonies of his antiquity, lea the 
confirmation of a later writer. It is further objected, /e- 
venthly, that Jonathan, who made the Chaldee psraphrl 
on the prophets, has omitted Daniel ; whence it fe 
tt 
ie7 
3 
Jews with other books of the prophets. 
fame with regard to the ia of Ezra and Nehemiah; and 
a ‘Targum or Chaldee para- 
a a 
: ace nie bithop C Chand er has fhewn, 
as an an argum on Daniel. After all it 
deferves ‘confideration, na Jonathan frequently applies the 
fuller and clearer 
Lal 
“8 
5 
agiographa ;”’ alleging, 
not conformable to that of the other prophets, but he lived 
i ylon; hat 
like the courtiers g ee B ; and that, al- 
thoug had divine revelations communicated to him, it was 
not in the prophetic made, reams and vifions of the 
always efteemed a proph 
But the point in difpute between the Jews and Chriftians is 
fully decided by the authority of our blefled Lord, who 
calls him * Daniel the Ye deat —— he cites his predic- 
tion. (Matt. xxiv. 15. Mark x 
«The Jews,’’ fays the ciently learned bifhop — 
(Leétures ¢ on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, lib. x. 
ii. p. 61., &c. Gregory’ s Tranflation,) ‘ would refufe to De 
niel even "the character of a prophet: but the arguments un- 
der which they fhelter this opinion are very futile: for thofe 
points which they maintain concerning the conditions, on 
which the gift of prophecy is imparted; the different gra- 
dations, and the difcrimination between the true prophecy 
and mere in{piration, are all trifling and abfurd,- without 
any foundation in the nature of things, and totally deftitute 
of Scripture authority. They add, that Daniel was neither 
originally educated in the prophetic difcipline and precepts, 
nor afterwards mas conformably to the manner of the pro- 
hets. I do not, however, comprehend how this can di- 
minith his aaa i a divine miffion and infpiration; it may 
than thofe of 
$ 
poffibly enable ue, indeed, to affign a reafon for the aa 
larity between the Ayle of Daniel and that of the other 
a. and for its poffeffing fo little of the sana and cha 
rater of poetry, which the reft feem to h moibed ia 
common from the {chools and difcipline i in an they were 
educated.” 
It has been objected, eighthly, that the part of Daniel’s 
book which is written in Chaldce, refembles the ftyle of the 
old Chaldee paraphrafes — being compofed many hun- 
dred years after the iel, mult have a different 
ftyle from that ufed in his. ee aud, therefore, that part 
could not have been written at a period very remote from the 
date of the eldeft of thefe Chaldee ie. This argument 
is one of thofe which, by proving too much, proves nothing. 
According to’ this ode of reafoning, Homer cannat be fo 
ancient an author as he is generally reputed to be, becaufe 
the Greek language continued much the fame many bun- 
dred years after his time: but the {kyle of Daniel's Chaldee 
° xreek c 
Tt has been farther object<d, ninrh/y, that the book of Da- 
niel feems to have been compofed to do honour to the Jews, 
- the perfon of Daniel, by making = asa Jew, fuperior 
o ail the wife men of Babylon. nce we might infer, 
a becaufe books have been counte fit under the names 
of perfons of renown, sie ca 
fame Sacine ome ge 
name 
of this or that wri much more probable pr fap 
tion than the c coat that there were fome genuine books 
of his writing. 
The tenth objection is, that the author of the book of 
Daniel appears plainly to be a writer of things paft, after a 
prophetical manner, by his uncommon puniuality, by not 
only foretelling things to come, like other prophets, but 
fixing the time when the things were to happen. But other 
prophets have done the fame, e. g. 
nuance of the antediluvian world; 400 years “for the fojourn- 
ne of Abraham’s pofterity in a flrange Jand; 40 years fer 
€ peregrination of children of Ifrael; 70 years for the 
Geecn of Tyre; 70 years for the captivity of Judah, 
— and, therefore, ve fixing of the times and dates can- 
ot bea particular objection againft the prophecies of Da- 
wel Jofephus (Antiq. }. x. c. 11.) afcribes this punétu- 
ality to divine oe, and not, like the objeGtor, to the 
late compofition of the book; and deduces from it an argue 
ment in proof of the diftinguifhing excellence of the pros 
het. 
P Laflly, it is obje&ted, that the book of Daniel gives an 
imperfect, confuled, contradiGtory, obfcure, and emblema- 
tical relation of Gs, blended with images and fymbols, un- 
like the books of the other prophets, and taken from the 
{chools of the Greeks. It may be replied, that Daniel’a 
mode of writing was fuited to his defign, which was not to 
compofe a hiftory, but to deliver prophecies, and hiltory meres 
ly fo far as it relates to prophecies. The charge of his con- 
tradiGting other hiftorical Aa aha is altogether unfounded. 
As to the cenfure of his emblems, which are faid not to re- 
femble thofe of other prophets, a ee to have been borrowed: 
from the fchools of the Greeks, this is unjuft; for fimilar 
emblems. 
129 years for the conti-. 
/ 
