Euphranor. [I]t must be allowed that, as some prophecies are clear, there are others very obscure; but, left to myself, I doubt I should never have inferred from thence that they were not Divine. In my own way of thinking, I should have been apt to conclude that the prophecies we understand are a proof for inspiration; but that those we do not understand are no proof against it. Inasmuch as for the latter our ignorance, or the reserve of the Holy Spirit may account; but for the other nothing, for aught that I see, can account but inspiration.

Alciphron. Now I know several sagacious men who conclude this very differently from you, to wit, that the one sort of prophecies is nonsense, and the other contrived after the events. Behold the difference between a man of free thought and one of narrow principles!

Euph. It seems then they reject the Revelations because they are obscure, and Daniel’s prophecies because they are clear.

Alc. Either way a man of sense sees cause to suspect there has been foul play.

Euph. Your men of sense are, it seems, hard to please.

George Berkeley, Alciphron, in The Works of George Berkeley, D. D., vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1901), p. 284.