time is determined, when these events were to happen, which was the very next day. Accordingly, within this space of time, the several parts of this prediction received a punctual accomplishment. The prophecy therefore seems to argue an unerring and divine prescience *. But here it may be afked, "Is it likely, that God "fhould refufe to answer Saul, when he confulted " him in ways appointed by himself, and yet should " answer him in a forbidden way; and hereby fa vour and encourage necromantic divinations, when " he had expressly ordered those who practised them "to be punished with death?" Saul having been rejected by God for his ftubborn difobedience to the divine orders, had no right to ask or expect his direction and prefervation in his prefent danger; nor could God have granted it, confiftently with his design of preparing the way for the advancement of David to the throne of Ifrael. For this reafon, God did not an fwer * Those, instead of falfifying, do really confirm the truth of this prediction, who object, “that Saul hardly returned to his camp early enough in the morning after he had confulted the witch, or in füfficient fpirits to prepare for the "battle that day, which therefore must have been fought the "day after." For what would be with us the second day after the night in which Saul confulted the witch, was the morrow or next day with the Jews, who reckoned from fun-fet to funfet; and confequently included what we should call the next day, in the natural day on which he was at Endor. Nay, if the prophecy was not delivered till after midnight, we should not understand by to-morrow any part of the day which was begun. fwer him in ways of his own appointment. Nor did he afterwards anfwer him in a forbidden way; but (if the explication here given of this history be just) interpofed previously to the use of magic rites, and on purpose to reprove Saul for having recourfe to them, and to pronounce upon him the fentence of death for this very crime at the inftant he was committing it; and thus to testify the divine displeasure against it. How this could encourage the üfe of necromancy, or indeed how God could more effectually discourage that most detestable art; I am not able to conceive. The method of God's proceeding on this occafion, seems very conformable to what he had been pleased to do before, in other cases of a like nature. When the king of Moab had recourse to forceries, God himself interpofed, and so over-ruled the mind of Balaam, that he was compelled to bless those whom Balak wanted him to curfe *. And when king Ahaziah sent to confult Baalzebub about his recovery, God by his prophet Elijah ftopt his meffengers, reproved their mafter, and denounced his death +. And why might not God in like manner interpose in the cafe of Saul, in order to disappoint his hopes of divine protection, and to denounce hist doom; the foreknowlege of which had fo great an effect upon him, that he inftantly fell down into a fwoon, and could no longer bear up against the bitter agonies of his mind? What is there in this con duct, *Numb. xxiii. 2 Kings i. 2-4 duct inconfiftent with the juftice or fanctity of the great Governor of the world? Could Saul complain of being sentenced to die for having recourse to those impious arts, the exercise of which he himself had heretofore punished with death? How proper was it, that his death fhould appear to be the punishment of his guilt? His death, if it had not been foretold, would have been confidered as a common event, rather than as the execution of the divine difpleasure. He had certainly difregarded the threatenings of God to depofe him, and to appoint David in his ftead; and very probably he had taken occafion 'from his fufpending their execution, to turn them into ridicule. Finding that he continued in the full poffeffion of his kingdom, many years after Samuel had foretold it should be taken from him; he might afcribe the prediction to the difaffection and enmity of the prophet, and his attachment to David. To clear the character of Samuel from all suspicion, and vindicate the credit of his predictions; to evidence the divine defignation of David to the throne of Ifrael; and in the most affecting manner to display the righteous vengeance of God against the practice of necromantic divinations, by which Saul had now filled up the measure of his guilt; feems to have been the design of God in this miraculous appearance of his prophet. I have now laid before the reader what occurred to me upon this difficult fubject; and supported in the strongest manner I was able, from the reasonings of others, and my own reflections, the two different explications of it which carry with them the greatest appearance appearance of probability. I pretend not to decide which explication is true. Neither of them countenances the opinion, that miracles are performed by evil fpirits; which is all I contend for. That which was propofed laft, feems to me the best supported; though on this, as on every other point, I leave every one to form his own judgment. The cafe of the devil's appearing to our Saviour in the wilderness, and tranfporting or accompanying him from one place to another, and fhewing him all the kingdoms of the world; would naturally fall next under our confideration. But if the explication I have elsewhere given of this history, be just; it is no exception to the principle we have hitherto been endeavouring to establish. In confirmation of that explication, I would obferve, that if it be true, that the Scripture appropriates all miracles to God; then the common interpretation of our Saviour's temptations, which ascribes fo many miracles to the devil, must be false. We have now examined the sense of revelation concerning the author of miracles; produced many arguments to fhew, that the Scriptures reprefent them as works peculiar to God, and attempted to folve the feveral objections against this account. The number and eminence of thofe Chriftian writers, who have taught, that the Scriptures allow to evil spirits a miraculous power, and the ufe made of that doctrine by unbelievers, in fapping the foundation of the Jewish and Christian revelations, together with the nature and importance of the fubject itfelf, will excufe the compass compass with which it has been treated. I will add, that deifts fhould not avail themselves of the errors of Christians, which are arguments only against the perfons who advance them, not against their religion. And even for them much allowance will be made by thofe, who confider, that the opinion entertained at prefent concerning the miraculous power of evil fpirits, prevailed very generally amongst the ancient Heathens and Jews; was early engrafted into the Scriptures themselves, by falfe tranflations of them; and during the triumph of popery was deemed an ef fential article of the Christian faith. For how many ages were men prevented, by their prejudices, from understanding the volume of nature, as well as that of revelation? At the revival of learning, and the glorious era of the Reformation, when men began to recover the use of their understandings, and to apply the true rules of criticism to the ftudy of the Scriptures; they at the fame time began to call in question the empire of Satan over the natural world. Luther abolished the practice of exorcifms, and many others no longer gave credit to idle ftories of fafcinations and magic. Much was then done to clear revelation from various corruptions which had been introduced into it. "And much" (fays one of the moft capable judges * of the subject) " still remains to be done." No empire fo durable as that of error and Dr. Lowth, bishop of Oxford, in his fermon at the vifitation of the bishop of Durham, p. 24. |