highly merit the attention of every ftatefman. Yet there is one point, in which I must own I differ from him. Very forry, however, I am to have even a difference of opinion with one whom I fo highly respect, and who is as much esteemed by those who well know him for his amiable character and worth as a man, as he is admired for his acuteness as a biblical scholar, and his foundness as a divine.

Mr. Pearfon fays (page 30) that "he is ready to admit it as the Rule of Nature and of Right, that the Established Religion of a Country fhould be that of the majority of its members."

This, as it refers to the increase of fetaries, appears to concede too far. It is not I conceive a mere numerical majority, which should ascertain the point, but a decided and fuperior weight of talents and influence of the party in queftion. The nature of our conftitution does not allow that even the reprefentatives of the people fhould be chofen by the whole number of the inhabitants of a county or borough, but only by the free-holders and freemen. The Methodists are at prefent, I believe, the most numerous body of Sectaries in this kingdom, but on account of their comparative ignorance and imbecility they would, if the prefent eftablishment fhould be removed, have I think lefs claim to fupply its place, than fome of the other fectaries who are greatly inferior in point of number.

I perfectly agree with Mr. P. that it might be very useful to permit the convocation to assemble for the purpose of authorifing fome improvement in the tranflation of the Bible, and to make fome small alterations in our Church Offices. No one has a higher reverence for our excellent Liturgy than I have; but without the leaft intrenching upon her doctrines, the change or omiffion of a few words would certainly make it more perfect. In the prayer for the high court of parliament we say "our moft religious and gracious king" Now as the word "gracious" is ufed in the very fame sentence in reference to the Deity, fome other word might be chosen with better effect. And though the epithet religious," I am happy to fay, applies with ftrict juftice to our venerable fovereign, yet in the time of Charles II. it was not I fear ftri&tly applicable; and it is poffible, that at fome future time, a fovereign may be upon the throne of Great-Britain, whom it might be improper to ftile "most religious." If the fentence were thus altered, it would I apprehend be preferable.-"Most gracious God we humbly befeech thee as for this kingdom in general, fo especially for

66

the

the high court of parliament under our lawful king at this time affembled."

In the answer to the second question in the Catechism the word "inheritor" is often, at leaft by young people, underflood, as referring to an inheritance in poffeffion, rather than to one in prospect, The word "heir" would in my opinion better fupply its place, or the meaning of the sentence more plainly expreffed by a periphrafis.

In the latter part of the Catechifm "verily and indeed, taken and received, &c." would I think be better expressed by "Spiritually taken and received." Some other verbal al-. terations and omiffions, if judiciously made, would improve our Liturgy, but they can only with propriety be effected by the fanction of fome power legally authorized.

I again repeat, that no one has a higher reverence for our excellent Liturgy than I have, but as our language has, in many inftances changed fince it was compiled, and no human compofition is without fome little imperfections, my wifh is o have it as perfect as poffible.

I am, Mr. Editor,
Yours, &c.
BRITANNICUS.

FOR THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE.

AN ESSAY ON ZECHARIAH'S PROPHECY OF THE
THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, AND THE POTTER.

ZECHARIAH, xi. 12, 13.

And I faid unto them, If ye think good give me my price, and if not forbear: So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of Silver. And the Lord Jaid unto me, Caft it unto the Potter a goodly price that I was prized at by them. And I took the thirty pieces of Silver and caft them to the Potter, in the Houfe of the Lord.

A

LL Chriftians muft, in reverence to St. Matthew, maintain that this Prophecy was literally fulfilled in the affair of Judas felling Chrift: and it is no wonder that

Infidels

Infidels fhould as univerfally deny it to have fuch completion; fince, if this Prophecy, to which some circumstances afford fuch plaufible objections, be allowed to have had a literal ac complishment with reference to Chrift, there is fcarce one, ufually alledged by Chriftians, which can confiftently be denied. It is therefore of great importance to examine their objections to the bottom; efpecially as no Chriftian writer appears to have faid all which truly and rationally may be faid in defence of the application of the Prophecy.

The first objection which Infidels make is, that the whole account which Zechariah gives, is exprefsly faid to be of a Vifion; and therefore they contend, that little or no stress can be laid upon it, as to a real accomplishment in real things.

Secondly, that Zechariah afks of the people a reward for prophefying; and they give him thirty pieces of Silver whereas Judas bargained for thirty pieces of Silver to fell Chrift; things, as they affert, totally different.

Thirdly, Zechariah rejects the thirty pieces of Silver, as too low a reward; whereas Judas returns them through remorfe.

Fourthly, Zechariah gives his to the Potter, an object of charity; whereas the priests pay them for the field called the Potter's field. Hence they conclude that the Evangelift quotes the Prophet for the fake of the words "thirty pieces of Silver," and "Potter," without any analogy of circumftances. How violent an attack is this! but we must try to repel it gradually on all fides.

Firft, as to Zechariah's discourse being a Vision; this is fo far from proving that it cannot be a prophecy of fome real event to be literally accomplished, that, in fact it proves the contrary. Real events, in the Hiftory of the Prophets, reft there, and be productive of nothing; but vifionary ones have no propriety without reference to other and real things; and therefore in Prophets are most proper pre. dictions of future real events.

may

Secondly, God himself exprefsly calls the thirty pieces of Silver given to Zechariah "my price;" that is, "his own price; and the thirty pieces given to Judas, are as juftly called "the price of him who was valued: whom the Čhildren of Ifrael (the Priests, &c.) did value;" as they were given for his life, who was the Son of God, as well as the Son of Man. God confiders the service of the Prophet as his own; and the Prophet as representing him. And if, on this

acccount

account, he calls Zechariah's thirty pieces his own price, well may he confider the price of his Son's blood as his own price. This furprizingly exact resemblance of the price, even to one piece of Silver, joined to the circumftance of its being God's, is fufficient to evince the refemblance of the Type and Antitype, especially when the ironical expreffion of "a goodly price," fits both. There is furely no neceffity that the motives of giving to Zechariah and Judas fhould be the fame ; or the internal characters of both the fame; especially fince their external characters bore a great refemblance, Zechariah being a Prophet of the Living God, and Judas 'an Apostle of his Son.

To the third objection hence follows an eafy answer; viz. that to evince the reality of the Type and the Anti-type it is not neceffary that there fhould be an exact refemblance in the motives of the rejection of the thirty pieces of Silver, though there is really more than is abfolutely required. Both Zechariah and Judas rejected the money as being a goodly, i. e. an incompetent price of their fervice; both therefore with remorfe for having accepted it, though in different degrees, according to the different complexion of their minds.

Laftly; the Infidel's fuppofition that Zechariah gave his pieces to the Potter as an object of charity, is perfectly gra tuitous, there being no fort of reafon to conclude that because a man is a Potter he is poor, and an object of charity. Befides if this were true, the refemblance would be exact. Zechariah's thirty pieces of Silver are given to an object of charity, fo are Judas's, with this difference, that the former is done immediately by Zechariah, the other mediately by the Priefts. But befides all the former furprizing circumftances of resemblance, there are more; vi. first, that both Zechariah and Judas are faid to caft down the thirty pieces of Silver, not to give them as men give charity; and fecondly, this is faid to be done in the Houfe of the Lord; a circumftance which is more worthy of attention, as, at the time of Zechariah's prophefying, infidels allow that there was no Temple ftanding at Jerufalem, and confequently there could be no occafion to add this circumftance in Zechariah, had it not been on account of the literal accomplishment in the case of Judas.

And now it must be owned by every impartial man, that there is fuch a furprizing resemblance in the whole accounts of the transactions of Zechariah and Judas, that the former

Occurring

occurring in the Prophet, and the latter in the Evangelift, one could not without violence to one's reason doubt that the one was predicted and typified in the other. But when the authority of an Evangelift, who is known to be infpired, refers the accomplishment to the prediction, nothing but obftinate infidelity can any longer doubt.

Before quitting this fubject it must be observed, that Infidels reject the Evangelift's authority as referring to a Prophet, viz. Jeremiah, in whom no fuch prophecy is found. See Matt. xxvii. 9. To this it seems a fufficient answer, that God's providence feems not concerned to preserve the books of the Old or New Teftament from fuch alterations by transcribers as can be attended with no bad confequences; and that such an error as the abbreviation of Ieguas for Zexagias might be permitted to flip in, the notorietyof Zechariah's prophecy fecuring it against any bad confequences.But as to the difference of words, it is not at all unreasonable to fuppofe, that St. Matthew intended to quote only the fenfe and not the words. But if any fober and modest Christian should suppose that fome prophecies of the old Prophets might be loft as to the writing, and only retained by tradition at the time of our Saviour, and that this of Jeremiah's might be one inftance, it does not appear what bad confequence could be fixed on his opinion; fince, according to him, we are bound to believe nothing infpired but what is referred to as fuch by the inspired writers of the New-Teftament.

I will here fay fomething in defence of another prophecy of Zechariah, xiii. 7, which is urged by Chriftians as being fulfilled, on the authority of Matt. xxvi. 31. and Mark xiv. 27. fupported by Philip. ii, 6. and John x. 30.-In objection to all this, infidels can only fay, that indeed they know not who is meant by God's fellow," but that it cannot be JESUS CHRIST, because in continuation of this discourse in ch. xiv. 16. Zechariah promises that those who had once come against Jerufalem in an hoftile manner fhould be converted to the Jewish religion, which never happened after Chrift's time. Now this is the moft groundlefs objection that ever was made. For as to continuation, it is no more fo than as the xivth follows the xiiith. There are diftinct prophecies between xiii. 7. and xiv. 16. and they must be diftreffed indeed for objections, who deny a moft plain prophecy in the former chapter, on a fuppofition of obfcurity in a fubsequent one. But the truth is, this latter prophecy is plain enough; the exprefsions being only figurative of the converfion of the whole world to Chriftianity, which is not yet accomplished.