Note 613 — SERMON VII.[589]

"It is a very misleading notion of Prophecy," says Dr. Arnold,—(a writer to whom, more than to any other person, I conceive that we are indebted for "Essays and Reviews;" that unhappy production being the lawful development and inevitable result of the late Head-master of Rugby's most unsound and mischievous religious teaching:)—"It is a very misleading notion of Prophecy, if we regard it as an anticipation of History." (Sermons, i. p. 375.) "I think that, with the exception of those prophecies which relate to our Lord, the object of Prophecy is rather to delineate principles and states of opinion which shall come, than external events. I grant that Daniel seems to furnish an exception." (Life and Correspondence, p. 59.) This was written in 1825. In 1840, we are informed:—"The latter chapters of Daniel, if genuine, would be a clear exception to my Canon of Interpretation.... But I have long thought that the greater part of the Book of Daniel is most certainly a very late work, of the time of the Maccabees; and the pretended prophecy about the Kings of Grecia and Persia, and of the North and South, is mere history, like the poetical prophecies in Virgil and elsewhere.... That there may be genuine fragments in it, is very likely." (Ibid., p. 505.)—In other words, Dr. Arnold, rather than suppose "my Canon of Interpretation" (!) worthless, is prepared to eject the Book of Daniel from the Inspired Canon. Any thing is "very likely," in short, except that God could foretell future events, and Dr. Arnold be in error!... Ἆρ' οὐχ ὕβρις τάδ';