Transcriber’s Note:

This project uses utf-8 encoded characters. If some characters are not readable, check your settings of your browser to ensure you have a default font installed that can display utf-8 characters.

THE
WORKS
OF
RICHARD HURD, D. D.
LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER.
VOL. V.

Printed by J. Nichols and Son,
Red Lion Passage, Fleet-Street, London.

THE
WORKS
OF
RICHARD HURD, D. D.
LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER.
IN EIGHT VOLUMES.
VOL. V.

LONDON:
PRINTED FOR T. CADELL AND W. DAVIES, STRAND.
1811.

THEOLOGICAL WORKS.
VOL. I.

TWELVE SERMONS
INTRODUCTORY
TO THE STUDY OF
THE PROPHECIES.

AN
INTRODUCTION
TO THE STUDY OF THE
PROPHECIES
CONCERNING THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH;
AND, IN PARTICULAR,
CONCERNING THE CHURCH OF PAPAL ROME:
IN TWELVE SERMONS,
PREACHED IN LINCOLN’S-INN-CHAPEL,
AT THE LECTURE OF
THE RIGHT REV. WILLIAM WARBURTON,
LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER.

Ita, si potuero, stylo moderabor meo, ut nec ea, quæ supersint, dicam, nec ea, quæ satis sint, prætermittam.
Augustin. C. D. l. xvii. c. 1.

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
WILLIAM, LORD MANSFIELD,
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND,
AND
TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
Sir JOHN EARDLEY WILMOT, Knt.
LATE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE COMMON PLEAS,
TRUSTEES FOR THIS LECTURE,
THE FOLLOWING SERMONS
ARE MOST HUMBLY INSCRIBED
BY THE AUTHOR,
R. HURD.

LINCOLN’S-INN,
MARCH 2, 1772.

EXTRACT
FROM THE
DEED OF TRUST
FOR FOUNDING THIS LECTURE.

An Indenture, bearing date July 21, 1768, sets forth, “That the right reverend William Lord Bishop of Gloucester has transferred the sum of 500l. Bank four per cent. annuities consolidated, to the right honourable William Lord Mansfield, Lord Chief Justice of his Majesty’s Court of King’s Bench, the right honourable Sir John Eardley Wilmot, Lord Chief Justice of his Majesty’s Court of Common Pleas, and the honourable Charles Yorke[1], of Lincoln’s-Inn, in the county of Middlesex, UPON TRUST, for the purpose of founding a Lecture, in the form of a Sermon, To prove the truth of Revealed Religion in general, and of the Christian in particular, from the completion of the Prophecies in the Old and New Testament, which relate to the Christian church, especially to the apostacy of Papal Rome: That, in case of any vacancy in this trust by the decease of any one or more of the above-mentioned Trustees, the place or places shall be filled up, from time to time and as occasion may require, by the surviving Trustees, or Trustee, or by the Executors of the survivor of them: That the Trustees shall appoint the Preacher of Lincoln’s-Inn for the time being, or some other able Divine of the Church of England, to preach this Lecture: That the Lecture shall be preached every year in the Chapel of Lincoln’s-Inn (if the Society give leave[2]) and on the following days, viz. the first Sunday after Michaelmas Term, the Sunday next before and the Sunday next after Hilary Term: That the Lecturer shall not preach the said Lecture longer than for the term of FOUR YEARS, and shall not again be nominated to preach the same: And, when the term of four years is expired, that the said Lecturer shall print and publish, or cause to be printed and published, all the Sermons or Lectures, that shall have been so preached by him.”

CONTENTS
OF
THE FIFTH VOLUME.

SERMON I.
FALSE IDEAS OF PROPHECY.
2 Peter, i. 21.

Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake, as they were moved by the Spirit of God.

The argument from prophecy, in support of the Christian revelation, would be thought more conclusive, at least would be more distinctly apprehended, if men could be kept from mixing their own prejudices and preconceptions with it.

The general question may be expressed thus—“Whether the predictions in the Old and New Testament do not appear to have been so far, and in such sense, fulfilled, as to afford a reasonable conviction, that they came not, as the text speaks, by the will of man, but from the Spirit of God.”

In examining this question, the predictions themselves cannot be too diligently studied, or too cautiously applied: But, while this work is carrying on, we are still to suppose, and should not for a moment forget, that they may be, what they manifestly claim to be, of divine suggestion; I mean, we are to admit, not the truth indeed, but the possibility, of such suggestion, till we can fairly make it appear that they are of human contrivance, only.

It will not be denied, that the tenour of Scripture, as well as the text, clearly asserts the divine original and direction of the prophecies. A just reasoner on the subject will, therefore, proceed on this supposition, and only try whether it be well founded. He will consider, whether the construction of the prophecies, and the application of them, be such, as may accord to those pretensions; and will not argue against them on other principles, which they do not admit, or suppose. All this is plainly nothing more than what may be expected from a fair inquirer, and what the rules of good reasoning exact from him.

The use of this conduct would be, To prevent, or set aside, all those fancies and imaginations which too frequently mislead inquirers into the evidence of prophecy; which fill their minds with needless perplexities, and disgrace their books with frivolous and impertinent disquisitions. And, because I take it to be of principal moment, that this use be perfectly seen and understood, I shall, first, apply myself to justify and explain it.

It is true that prophecy, in the very idea of that term, at least in the scriptural idea of it, implies the divine agency; and that, exerted not merely in giving the faculty itself, but in directing all its operations.

Yet I know not how it is that, when men address themselves to the study of the prophetic scriptures, they are apt to let this so necessary idea slip out of their minds; and to discourse upon them just as they would or might do, on the supposition that the prophet was left at liberty to dispense this gift in all respects, as he should think proper. No wonder then, that they should misconceive of its character, and entertain very different notions about the exercise of this power from what the Scriptures give them of it. Nay it is no wonder that they should even treat the subject with some scorn, while they judge of it by the rule of human prudence, and not of divine wisdom: for, though they would readily own themselves incapable of pronouncing on the secret counsels of God, if prophecy, in its whole administration, be regarded as proceeding merely from him; yet, from their knowledge of human nature, they would think, and with some reason, they were well able to conceive how the spirit of prophecy would be administered, if man had the disposal of this spirit committed to him.

Now it happens, as I said, (by an inexcusable perverseness, or inattention, indeed, yet in fact it so happens) that, to the consideration of the argument from prophecy, as applied to the proof of the Christian religion, many inquirers bring with them this strange and fatal prejudice; and then their reasonings, or rather conjectures, on the SUBJECT, the END, and the DISPENSATION of prophecy, are only such, as this prejudice may be expected to inspire.

I. Judging for ourselves, and by the light of human investigation only, there might be some ground for supposing, that, if it should please God at any time to confer the gift of prophecy on his favoured servants, they would be solely or chiefly commissioned to unfold the future fortunes of the most conspicuous states and kingdoms in the world: that so divine a power would embrace, as its peculiar object, the counsels and enterprizes, the successes and triumphs of the most illustrious nations; those especially, which should rise to the summit of empire by generous plans of policy, and by the efforts of public virtue; of free states, in a word, such as we know to have flourished in the happier ages of Greece, and such as we still contemplate with admiration in the vast and awful fabric of Consular Rome. This we might think a fit object for the prophetic spirit to present to us; as corresponding in some degree to the sublime character of a prophet; and as most worthy, in our conceptions, of the divine attention and regard.

But how are we surprized to find that this astonishing power, the most signal gift of Heaven to mankind, hath, in its immediate application at least, respected, many times, obscure individuals, whose names and memory are only preserved in one barbarous chronicle, hath been chiefly employed, and, as we are ready to express it, thrown away on one single state, or rather family; inconsiderable in the extent of its power or territory; sequestered from the rest of the nations, and hardly known among them[3]; with some mention, perhaps, of greater things, but incidentally touched, as it may seem, and as they chanced to have some connexion with the interests of this sordid people!

Was this a stage, on which it might be expected that the God of heaven would condescend to display the wonders of his prescience; when He kept aloof, as it were, from more august theatres, and would scarcely vouchsafe to have the skirts of his glory seen by the nobler and more distinguished nations of the World?

Such questions as these are sometimes asked. But they are surely asked by those, who consider the prophets, as acting wholly on human views and motives; and not as over-ruled in all their predictions by the spirit of God. For it is natural enough for vain man, if left to himself in the exercise of the prophetic power, to turn his view towards such objects as appear to him great, in preference to others; and to estimate that greatness by the lustre of fame, in which they shine out to the observation of mankind. But a moment’s reflection may shew the probability, the possibility at least, that God’s thoughts are not as our thoughts; and that, if the prophet’s foresight be under the divine influence, there may be reason enough to direct it towards such scenes and objects, as we might be apt to undervalue or overlook. It is even very conceivable, that, if God be the dispenser of prophecy, and not man, all that seems great and illustrious in human affairs may to his all-judging eye appear small and contemptible[4]; and, on the other hand, what we account as nothing, may, for infinite reasons, unknown to us, but so far as he is pleased to discover them, be of that importance as to merit the attention of all his prophets from the foundation of the world.

It is evident, then, that to reason in this manner on the subject of divine prophecy, is to suffer ourselves to be misled by a poor and vulgar prejudice; and to forget, what we should ever have present to us, the claim of God’s prophets to speak, not as themselves will, but as they are moved by his Spirit.

II. The END, or ultimate purpose of prophetic illumination, is another point, on which many persons are apt to entertain strange fancies, and to frame unwarrantable conclusions, when they give themselves leave to argue on the low supposition, before mentioned.

1. It is then hastily surmized that the scriptural prophecies, if any such be acknowledged, could only be designed, like the Pagan oracles, to sooth the impatient mind under its anxiety about future events; to signify beforehand to states or individuals, engaged in high or hazardous undertakings, what the issue of them would be, that so they might suit their conduct to the information of the prophet, and either pursue their purpose with vigour, or expect their impending fate with resignation. For, what other or worthier end, will some say, can Heaven propose to itself by these extraordinary communications, than to prepare and qualify such events as it decrees to bring to pass; to animate desponding virtue, on the one hand, or to relieve predestined misery, on the other; to adapt itself, in short, to our necessities by a clear discovery of its will in those many intricate situations, which perplex human prudence, elude human foresight, and, but for this previous admonition, would bear too hard on the natural force, or infirmity of the human mind? Some such idea, as this, was plainly entertained by those of the Pagan philosophers who concluded, from the existence of a divine power, that there must needs be such a thing as divination[5]. They thought the attributes of their gods, if any such there were, concerned in giving some notice of futurity to mankind.

2. Others, again, encouraged in this conjectural ingenuity by partial views of scripture, come to persuade themselves that prophecy is an act of special grace and favour, not to this or that state, or individuals, indiscriminately, as either may seem to stand in need of it; but to one peculiar and chosen people, who, on some account or other, had merited this extraordinary distinction.

Self-love seems to have suggested this idea to the ancient and modern Jews; and many others, I doubt, are ready enough to suppose with them, that prophecy, under the Mosaic dispensation, had no other reasonable use, or end.

3. Lastly, there are those who erect their thoughts to nobler contemplations, and conclude that this intercourse between heaven and earth can only be carried on with the sublime view of preserving an awful sense of Providence in an impious and careless world.

Vanity, or superstition, may they say, has suggested to particular men, or to societies of men, that their personal or civil concerns are of moment enough to be the subject of divine prophecies, vouchsafed merely for their own proper relief or satisfaction. But nothing less than the maintenance of God’s supreme authority over his moral creation could be an object worthy of his interposing in the affairs of men, in so remarkable a manner. To keep alive in their minds a prevailing sense of their dependance upon him, is, then, the ultimate end of prophecy: and what more suitable (will they perhaps add, when warmed with this moral enthusiasm,) to the best ideas we can form of divine wisdom, than that this celestial light should be afforded to such ages or nations as are most in want of that great and salutary principle?

There is reason to believe, that many of the ancient speculatists reasoned thus on the subject of divination. For, as they argued from the existence of their gods, to the necessity of divination; so, again, they turned the argument the other way, and from the reality of divination, inferred the existence and providence of their gods[6]. In drawing the former conclusion, they shewed themselves to be in the system of those who maintain, that the end of prophecy is the instruction of men in their civil or personal concerns: when they drew the latter, they seemed to espouse the more enlarged sentiments of such as make the end of prophecy to be, The instruction of men in the general concerns of religion.

I omit other instances, that might be given; and concern myself no further with these, than just to observe from them; That the foundation of all such systems is laid in the prejudices of their respective patrons; conjecturing rather what use might be made of this faculty, and to what purpose men, according to their different views or capacities, would probably apply it, than regarding it, with due reverence, as directed by the spirit of God. For then they would see, that not one of those ends, nor any other of human conjecture, could be safely relied upon, as being that of prophetic inspiration. Not that all these ends need be rejected as manifestly unworthy of the divine intention; perhaps, each of them, in a certain sense, and with some proper limitation, might without impiety be conceived to enter into it. But neither could it be presumed, if none of those ends could have been pointed out, that therefore there was no reasonable end of divine prophecy; nor could it with modesty be affirmed that the noblest of these ends was certainly that, which the wisdom of God proposed chiefly and ultimately to accomplish by it, unless the information had been given by himself.

III. But this folly of commenting on prophecy by the false lights of the imagination is never more conspicuous, than when the DISPENSATION of this gift, I mean the mode of its conveyance, comes to exercise the curiosity of presumptuous men.

“If it be true, will some say, that the Supreme Being hath at any time condescended to enlighten human ignorance by a discovery of future events, these divine notices, whatever the end or subject of them might be, must have been given in terms so precise, and so clearly predictive of the events to which they are applied, that no doubt could remain either about the interpretation or completion of them.

On the contrary, these pretended prophecies are expressed so ambiguously or obscurely, are so involved in metaphor and darkened by hieroglyphics, that no clear and certain sense can be affixed to them, and the sagacity of a second prophet seems wanting to explain the meaning of the first.

Then, again, when we come to verify these predictions by the light of history, the correspondence is so slight many times, and so indeterminate, that none but an easy faith can assure itself, that they have, in a proper sense, been fulfilled. At the least, there is always room for some degree of suspense and hesitation: either the accomplishment fails in some particulars, or other events might be pointed out, to which the prophecy equally corresponds: so that the result is, a want of that entire and perfect conviction, which prophecy, no doubt, was intended to give, and, when fulfilled, must supply[7].

Indeed, continue these inquirers, if our prophecies had been derived from no higher an original, than that of Pagan oracles, we might well enough have supposed them to be of this stamp. When men had nothing to trust to, in their predictions, but their own ingenuity, they did well to deal in equivocal or enigmatic expression, and might leave it to chance, or to the passions of their votaries, to find an application for their random conjectures. But when the prophet is, what he assumes to be, an interpreter of heaven, he may surely afford to speak plainly, and to deliver nothing to us but what shall appear, with the fullest evidence, to be accomplished in the event.”

The invidious comparison, here made, between Scriptural prophecies and Pagan oracles, will be considered in its place. To the general principle, assumed by these inquirers, That divine prophecy must be delivered with the utmost clearness and perspicuity, and fulfilled with irresistible evidence, it may be sufficient to reply, as before, That, though these inquirers use the words, divine prophecy, they manifestly argue on the supposition of its human original, or at least application. In this latter case, indeed, it is likely enough that the prophet, for his own credit, or for what he might fancy to be the sole end of prophecy, might chuse, if he were entrusted with the knowledge of future events, to predict them with all possible clearness, and in such sort that obstinacy itself must see and admit the completion of them: but then, on the former supposition, that the prophet was only the minister and instrument of the divine counsels, in the high office committed to him, they will do well to answer, at their leisure, the following questions.

“How do they know in what manner, and with what circumstances, it was fit for divine wisdom to dispense a knowledge of futurity to mankind? How can they previously determine the degree of evidence with which a prediction must be either given or fulfilled? What assurance have they, that no reasonable ends could be served by prophecies, expressed with some obscurity, and accomplished in a sense much below what may seem necessary to unavoidable conviction? Can they even pretend, on any clear principles of reason, that very important ends, perhaps the most important, may not be answered by that mode of conveyance, which appears to them so exceptionable? Can they, in a word, determine before-hand, I do not say with certainty, but with any colour of probability; what must be the character of divine prophecy, when they know not the reason, most undoubtedly not all the reasons, why it is given, and have even no right to demand, that it should be given at all?”

Till these, and other questions of the like sort, be pertinently answered, it must be in vain to censure the ways of Providence, as not corresponding to our imperfect and short-sighted views.

So much for that capital prejudice taken from the supposed obscurity of the scriptural prophecies. Of smaller scruples and difficulties on this head, there is no end.

Men may ask, for instance, why the instruments employed in conveying these celestial notices to mankind, are frequently so mean and inconsiderable? The subject of a prediction is the downfall of some mighty state, or the fortune of its governours. Why then is this important revelation intrusted to an obscure priest, or sordid peasant, in preference to the great persons, more immediately concerned in it[8]?

Again; some momentous events have been signified in dreams: why not to persons awake, and in the full possession of their best faculties[9]?

And then, of those dreams, why are they sometimes sent to one man, and the interpretation of them reserved for another[10]?

Why—But I have done with these frivolous interrogatories; which, though pressed with all the advantage of Cicero’s rhetoric, have really no force against Pagan divination; and therefore surely none, against Scriptural prophecy; I mean, in the opinion of those who respect it least.

In truth, they who put these questions (arguing, as they must do, on the supposition that prophecy is divinely inspired) cannot excuse their presumption, even to themselves: and they, to whom such questions are proposed, will not, if they be wise, so much as attempt to resolve them. For they have the nature of arguments addressed not only to the ignorance, as we say, of the disputant, but to an ignorance clearly invincible by all the powers of human reason. Now to arguments of this sort—I know not[11]—is the answer of good sense, as well as of modesty, and, to a just reasoner, more satisfactory by far, than any solution whatever of the difficulty proposed[12].

Not that reason is to be wholly silenced on the argument of prophecy: for then every species of imposture would be ready to flow in upon us. The use, we should make both of that faculty, and of these preliminary considerations on the subject, the end, and the dispensation of prophecy is, briefly, this, To inquire, whether any prophecies have been given—in what sense they are reasonably to be interpreted—and how far, and whether in any proper sense, they have been fulfilled: to examine them, in a word, by their own claims, and on the footing of their own pretensions; that is, to argue on the supposition that they may be divine, till they can be evidently shewn to be otherwise.

This is clearly to act suitably to our own faculties; to keep within the sphere of our duty; and to reap the proper benefit, whatever it be, of a sober inquiry into the authority, and character, and accomplishment of the prophetic scriptures.

All the rest is idle cavil, and miserable presumption; equally repugnant to the clearest dictates of right reason, and to that respect which every serious man will think due to the subject, and to himself.

SERMON II.
THE TRUE IDEA OF PROPHECY.
Rev. xix. 10.

The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy.

It is very clear in what manner common sense instructs us to prosecute all inquiries into the divine conduct. Wise men collect, from what they see done in the system of nature, so far as they are able to collect it, the intention of its author. They will conclude, in like manner, from what they find delivered in the system of revelation, what the views and purposes of the revealer were.

Prophecy, which makes so considerable a part of that system, must, therefore, be its own interpreter. My meaning is, that, setting aside all presumptuous imaginations of our own, we are to take our ideas of what prophecy should be, from what, in fact, we find it to have been. If it be true (as the Apostle says, and as the thing itself speaks) that the things of God knoweth no man but the spirit of God[13], there cannot possibly be any way of acquiring right notions of prophecy, but by attending to what the spirit of prophecy hath revealed of itself. They, who admit the divine original of those scriptures, which attest the reality, and alone, as they suppose, contain the records, of this extraordinary dispensation, are more than absurd, are impious, if they desert this principle. And they, who reject or controvert their claim to such original, cannot, on any other principle, argue pertinently against that dispensation.

In short, believers and unbelievers, whether they would support, or overturn, the system of prophecy, must be equally governed by the representation given of it in scripture. The former must not presume, on any other grounds, to assert the wisdom and fitness of that system: and the latter will then take a reasonable method of discrediting, if by such means they can discredit, the pretensions of it. For, as to vindicate prophecy on any principles but its own, can do it no honour; so, to oppose it on any other, can neither prejudice the cause itself, nor serve any reasonable end of the opposer.

To scripture then we must go for all the information we would have concerning the use and intent of prophecy: and the text, to look no farther, will clearly reveal this great secret to us.

But, before we proceed to reason from the text, in which, as it is pretended, this discovery is made, it will be necessary to explain its true meaning.

St. John, in this chapter of the Revelations, from which the text is taken, had been shewn the downfall of Babylon, and the consequent exaltation of the church, in its closest union with Christ, prefigured under the Jewish idea of a marriage. To so delightful a vision, the Angel, in whose presence, and by whose ministry, this scene of glory had been disclosed, subjoins this triumphant admonition—Write, says he; Blessed are they which are called to the marriage of the Lamb. These are the true sayings of God.

The Apostle, struck with this emphatic address, and contemplating with grateful admiration so joyful a state of things, and the divinity of that fore-sight by which it was predicted, falls down at the angel’s feet to worship him. But he said into me, See, thou do it not; I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

The sense is plainly this: Direct thy acknowledgment for this important discovery, and that religious adoration, which it inspires, to God only who revealed it, and not to me, who am but thy fellow-servant in this office of bearing testimony to Jesus: I said in bearing testimony to Jesus; for know, that the spirit of prophecy, with which I am endowed, and by which I am enabled to foretell these great things, is but, in other words, the testimony of Jesus; it has no other use or end, but to do honour to him; the prophet, whether he be angel or man, is only the minister of God to bear witness to his Son; and his commission is ultimately directed to this one purpose of manifesting the glories of his kingdom. In discharging this prophetic office, which thou admirest so much, I am then but the witness of Jesus, and so to be considered by thee in no other light than that of thy fellow-servant.

It is evident from the expression, that the text was intended to give some special instruction to the Apostle, whose misguided worship afforded the occasion of it. For, if the design had merely been to enforce the general conclusion—worship God—the premises need only have been—I am the servant of God, as well as thou—for from these premises it had followed, that therefore God, and not the Angel, was to be worshiped. But the premises are not simply, I am thy fellow-servant, but I am the fellow-servant of those who have the testimony of Jesus: which clause indeed infers the same conclusion, as the former; but, as not being necessary to infer it (for the conclusion had been just and complete without it) was clearly added to convey a precise idea of prophecy itself, as being wholly subservient to Christ, and having no other use or destination, under its various forms and in all the diversities of its administration, but to bear testimony to him. Therefore the Angel says emphatically, in explanation of that latter clause,—For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy—or, as the sentence, in our translation, should have run[14], the order of its parts being inverted, For the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus.

It may not be pretended that no more was meant by the text, than that the particular prophecy, here delivered, was in attestation of Jesus: for then it would have been expressed with that limitation. The terms, on the other hand, are absolute and indefinite—the spirit of prophecy—whence we cannot but conclude that prophecy, in general, is the subject of the proposition.

We have here, then, a remarkable piece of intelligence conveyed to us (incidentally indeed conveyed, but not therefore the less remarkable) concerning the nature and genius of prophecy. The text is properly a key put into our hands, to open to us the mysteries of that dispensation; which had in view ultimately the person of Christ and the various revolutions of his kingdom—The spirit of prophecy is, universally, the testimony of Jesus[15].

The expression, as I have shewn, is so precise as to leave no reasonable doubt of its meaning. Yet it may further serve to justify this interpretation, if we reflect, how exactly it agrees with all that the Jewish prophets were understood to intend, and what Jesus himself and his apostles assert was intended, by their predictions.

It were endless to enumerate all the Prophecies of the Old Testament which have been supposed to point at Jesus: and the controversy concerning the application of some prophecies to him may be thought difficult. But it is very certain that the Jews, before the coming of Christ, gave this construction to their scriptures: they even looked beyond the letter of their sacred books, and conceived the testimony of the Messiah to be the soul and end of the commandment. The spirit of prophecy was firmly believed to intend that testimony, that the expectation was general of some such person, as Jesus, to appear among them, and at the very time in which he made his appearance. This, I say, is an undoubted fact, what account soever may be given of it; and so far evinces that the principle, delivered in the text, corresponds entirely to the idea which the fathers entertained of the prophetic spirit.

Next, Jesus himself appeals to the spirit of prophecy, as bearing witness to his person and dispensation. Search the Scriptures, says he to the Jews, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of ME[16]. Two things are observable in these words. 1. If the Jews thought they had eternal life in their scriptures, they must needs have understood them in a spiritual sense; for the letter of them taught no such thing: and I know not what other spiritual sense, that should lead them to the expectation of eternal life, they could put on their scriptures, but that prophetic, or typical sense, which respected the Messiah. 2. Jesus here expressly asserts, that their scriptures testified of him. How generally they did so, he explained at large in that remarkable conversation with two of his disciples, after his resurrection, when, beginning at Moses and ALL the prophets, he expounded unto them in ALL the scriptures the things concerning himself[17].

The Apostles of Jesus are frequent and large in the same appeal to the spirit of prophecy. Those things, says St. Peter to the Jews, which God had shewed by the mouth of ALL his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled[18]. And, again, after quoting the authority of Moses, Yea, and ALL the prophets from Samuel, and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days[19].

St. Paul seems to have composed some entire epistles[20], with a view of shewing that Christ was prefigured in the Law itself, and that He was, in truth, the substance of the whole Jewish dispensation. So thoroughly, according to him, did the spirit of prophecy pervade that system, and so clearly did it bear testimony to Jesus! Whence, in his apology before Agrippa, we find him asserting of the whole Christian doctrine, that he said none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come[21].

More citations cannot be necessary on so plain a point. And I bring these to shew, not the truth of the principle itself (which is not now under consideration) but the certainty of the interpretation, here given to the text. For I make it say no more (though it says it indeed more precisely) than the scriptures themselves were understood by the Jews to say, and are represented by Jesus and his Apostles, as actually saying, when I affirm its sense to be, “That the scope and end of prophecy was the testimony of Jesus.”

On this principle, then, we are to regulate all our reasonings on the subject of prophecy. They who maintain, and they who would confute, its pretensions, must equally go on this supposition. If the system of prophecy can be justified, or so far as it can be justified, on these grounds, the defence must be thought solid and satisfactory; because those grounds are not arbitrarily assumed, but are such as that system itself acknowledges. On the contrary, whatever advantage may be fairly taken of those grounds to discredit prophecy, must needs be allowed, for the same reason.

Again: On the believer’s scheme, that prophecy is of divine inspiration, there can be no presumption in arguing from the grounds, here supposed, in favour of prophecy. Because, though all conclusions from a principle of human invention, must be hazardous and rash, yet from a principle of divine authority, many sober and just inferences may be drawn. For it is one thing, to discover a principle, and another, to argue justly and cogently from it.

On the other hand, the unbeliever, who regards the whole system of prophecy as of human invention, must yet be allowed to argue pertinently from the same grounds, because they are the proper grounds of that system: his arguments may be rightly formed, though the principle, from which he argues, appear to him of no authority. The rules of logic will indeed oblige him to argue on that principle; for, otherwise, he combats, not his adversary’s position, but a phantom of his own raising.

Having premised thus much concerning the right interpretation of the text, and the important relation it bears to the present subject, I should now proceed to inquire what conclusions naturally and fairly result from it. For from this assumption, that Jesus is the end of prophecy, it will, I think, follow very evidently, that the greater part of those objections which make so much noise, and are so confidently urged, on the subject of prophecy, have no force at all in them.

But, before we enter on that task, it may be useful to consider more particularly what the ASSUMED PRINCIPLE itself is, and to pause a while in contemplation of this idea.

The text, as here interpreted, and in full consonance with the tenor of the sacred writings, implies this fact—that Prophecy in general (that is, all the prophecies of the Old and New Testament) hath its ultimate accomplishment in the history and dispensation of Jesus.

But now, if we look into those writings, we find, 1. That prophecy is of a prodigious extent; that it commenced from the fall of man, and reaches to the consummation of all things: that, for many ages, it was delivered darkly, to few persons, and with large intervals from the date of one prophecy to that of another; but, at length, became more clear, more frequent, and was uniformly carried on in the line of one people, separated from the rest of the world, among other reasons assigned, for this principally, to be the repository of the divine oracles: that, with some intermission, the spirit of prophecy subsisted among that people, to the coming of Christ: that He himself and his Apostles exercised this power in the most conspicuous manner; and left behind them many predictions, recorded in the books of the New Testament, which profess to respect very distant events, and even run out to the end of time, or, in St. John’s expression, to that period, when the mystery of God shall be perfected[22].

2. Further, besides the extent of this prophetic scheme, the dignity of the Person, whom it concerns, deserves our consideration. He is described in terms, which excite the most august and magnificent ideas. He is spoken of, indeed, sometimes as being the seed of the woman, and as the son of man; yet so as being at the same time of more than mortal extraction. He is even represented to us, as being superior to men and angels; as far above all principality and power, above all that is accounted great, whether in heaven or in earth; as the word and wisdom of God; as the eternal Son of the Father; as the heir of all things, by whom he made the worlds; as the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.

We have no words to denote greater ideas, than these: the mind of man cannot elevate itself to nobler conceptions. Of such transcendent worth and excellence is that Jesus said to be, to whom all the prophets bear witness!

3. Lastly, the declared purpose, for which the Messiah, prefigured by so long a train of prophecy, came into the world, corresponds to all the rest of the representation. It was not to deliver an oppressed nation from civil tyranny, or to erect a great civil empire, that is, to atchieve one of those acts, which history accounts most heroic. No: it was not a mighty state, a victor people—

“Non res Romanæ perituraque regna—”

that was worthy to enter into the contemplation of this divine person. It was another and far sublimer purpose, which He came to accomplish; a purpose, in comparison of which, all our policies are poor and little, and all the performances of man as nothing. It was to deliver a world from ruin; to abolish sin and death; to purify and immortalize human nature; and thus, in the most exalted sense of the words, to be the Saviour of all men, and the blessing of all nations.

There is no exaggeration in this account. I deliver the undoubted sense, if not always the very words of scripture.

Consider then to what this representation amounts. Let us unite the several parts of it, and bring them to a point. A spirit of prophecy pervading all time—characterizing one person, of the highest dignity—and proclaiming the accomplishment of one purpose, the most beneficent, the most divine, that imagination itself can project—Such is the scriptural delineation, whether we will receive it or no, of that œconomy, which we call Prophetic!

And now then (if we must be reasoning from our ideas of fit and right, to the rectitude of the divine conduct) let me ask, in one word, whether, on the supposition that it should ever please the moral Governor of the world to reveal himself by prophecy at all, we can conceive him to do it, in a manner, or for ends more worthy of him? Does not the extent of the scheme correspond to our best ideas of that infinite Being, to whom all duration is but a point, and to whose view all time is equally present? Is not the object of this scheme, the Lamb of God that was slain from the foundation of the world, worthy, in our conceptions, of all the honour that can be reflected upon him by so vast and splendid an œconomy? Is not the end of this scheme such as we should think most fit for such a scheme of prophecy to predict, and for so divine a person to accomplish?

You see, every thing here is of a piece: all the parts of this dispensation are astonishingly great, and perfectly harmonize with each other.

We, who admit the divinity of those records, which represent to us this state of things, cannot but be infinitely affected with it: since, in that case, we only contemplate an undoubted fact, in this representation. And it should further seem that even those, who question that authority of scripture, must, if they be ingenuous, confess themselves struck by a representation at once so sublime and consistent. They require, on all occasions, to have reasons of what they call fitness, in the divine conduct, pointed out to them: Can they overlook them here, where they are so obvious and so convincing? At least, the credibility of such a scheme, as that of prophecy is in Scripture represented to be, appears not, so far as we have hitherto considered it, to be opposed or lessened in any degree by our natural prejudices; by the best notions, I mean, which we can frame on this subject; but is, indeed, much strengthened and confirmed by them.

On the idea of such a scheme, as is here presented to us, I enlarge no farther, at present, than just to make ONE general observation. It is this: That the argument from prophecy is not to be formed from the consideration of single prophecies, but from all the prophecies taken together, and considered as making one system; in which, from the mutual dependance and connection of its parts, preceding prophecies prepare and illustrate those which follow, and these, again, reflect light on the foregoing: just as, in any philosophical system, that which shews the solidity of it, is the harmony and correspondence of the whole, not the application of it, in particular instances.

Hence, though the evidence be but small, from the completion of any one prophecy, taken separately, yet, that evidence being always something, the amount of the whole evidence, resulting from a great number of prophecies, all relative to the same design, may be considerable; like many scattered rays, which, though each be weak in itself, yet, concentred into one point, shall form a strong light, and strike the sense very powerfully. Still more: this evidence is not simply a growing evidence, but is indeed multiplied upon us, from the number of reflected lights, which the several component parts of such a system reciprocally throw upon each: till, at length, the conviction rise into a high degree of moral certainty.

It hath been said indeed, of this scheme, or way of considering prophecy, that it is an imaginary scheme, of which there is not the least trace in any of the four Gospels; and that it even contradicts the whole evidence of prophecy, as it was understood and applied by the Apostles and evangelists[23].

But what, is there no trace of this scheme in the Gospel, when Jesus himself began at Moses and the prophets, and expounded [to his disciples] in ALL the scriptures the things concerning himself? Is this scheme contradictory to the evidence of prophecy, as understood by the Apostles, when St. Peter argued with the Jews from what God had spoken by the mouth of ALL his prophets, since the world began?

Is not here a series of prophecies, expressly referred to, as running up not only to the times of Moses[24], but to the beginning of the world? And is not this series argued from, as constituting one entire system of prophecy, and as affording an evidence distinct from that which arises from the consideration of each prophecy, taken singly and by itself?

But Jesus and his Apostles, usually, applied the prophecies singly and independently on each other, as so many different arguments for the general truth of the Gospel[25].

Could they do otherwise, when the occasions offered, in the course of their ministry, to which those prophecies were to be applied? Or, could they do better, in their discourses to the people, to whom the argument from single prophecies would be more familiar, than that complicated one, arising from a whole system? Does it follow, because the prophecies were applied singly, that therefore they might not with good reason be applied systematically; or that they may not now be so applied, when we have to do with those, who are capable of entering into this sort of argumentation? Will it be said that, because the moral precepts of the Gospel are delivered singly, there is therefore no such thing as a system of morality, or that the subject may not be treated with propriety, and with advantage too, in that form?

On the whole, the prophecies of the Old and New Testament, having clearly all the qualities of what we call a system, that is, consisting of many particulars, dependent on each other, and intimately connected by their reference to a common end, there is no reason why they may not be considered in this light; and there is great reason why they should be so considered, since otherwise, on many occasions, we shall not do justice to the argument itself.

To return then to the text (which implies the existence and use of such a system) and to conclude with it. The spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus. This angelic information presents, at first sight, an idea stupendous indeed, but, on such a subject, suitable enough to our expectations. It offers no violence to the natural sense of the human mind; but, on the contrary, hath every thing in it to engage our belief and veneration.

Such is the idea of Prophecy, contemplated in itself. What conclusions (of importance, as we suppose, to the right apprehension and further vindication of prophecy) may be drawn from that idea, will be next considered.

SERMON III.
CONCLUSIONS FROM THE TRUE IDEA OF PROPHECY.
Rev. xix. 10.

The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy.

We have seen how precarious all our reasonings on divine prophecy must be, when built on no better grounds than those of human fancy and conjecture. The text supplies us with a principle, as we believe, of divine authority; as all must confess, of scriptural authority; that is, of the same authority as that on which prophecy itself stands.

This principle has been explained at large. It affirms that Jesus, whose person and character and history are sufficiently known from the books of scripture, is the end and object of the prophetic system, contained in those books.

We are now at liberty to reason from this principle. Whatever conclusions are fairly drawn from it, must to the believer appear, as certain truths; must to the unbeliever appear, as very proper illustrations of that principle.

In general, if difficulties can be removed by pursuing and applying scriptural principles, they are fairly removed: and the removal of every such difficulty, on these grounds, must be a presumption in favour of that system, whether we call it of Prophecy, or Revelation, which is thus found to carry its own vindication with it.

From the principle of the text may, I think, be deduced, among others, the following conclusions; all of them tending to clear the subject of prophecy, and to obviate some or other of those objections, which prejudiced or hasty reasoners have been disposed to make to it.

I. My first conclusion is, “That, on the idea of such a scheme of prophecy, as the text supposes, a considerable degree of obscurity may be reasonably expected to attend the delivery of the divine predictions.”

There are general reasons which shew that prophecy, as such, will most probably be thus delivered. For instance, it has been observed, that, as the completion of prophecy is left, for the most part, to the instrumentality of free agents, if the circumstances of the event were predicted with the utmost precision, either human liberty must be restrained; or human obstinacy might be tempted to form, the absurd indeed, but criminal purpose, of counteracting the prediction. On the contrary, by throwing some part of the predicted event into shade, the moral faculties of the agent have their proper play, and the guilt of an intended opposition to the will of heaven is avoided. This reason seems to have its weight: and many others might still be mentioned. But I argue, at present, from the particular principle, under consideration.

An immense scheme of prophecy was ultimately designed to bear testimony to the person and fortunes of Jesus. But Jesus was not himself to come, till what is called the last age of the world, nor all the purposes of his coming to be fully accomplished, till the end of that age.

Now, whatever reasons might make it fit, in the view of infinite wisdom, to defer the execution of this scheme to so distant a period, may probably be conceived to make it fit, that the delivery of it should be proportionably dark and obscure. A certain degree of light, we will say, was to be communicated from the date of the prophecy: but it is very conceivable that the ages nearer the completion of it, might be more immediately concerned in the event predicted; and that, till such time approached, it might be convenient to leave the prediction in a good degree of obscurity.

The fact answers to this presumption. Prophecies of very remote events, remote, I mean, from the date of the prediction, are universally the most obscure. As the season advanced for their accomplishment, they are rendered more clear: either fresh prophecies are given, to point out the time, and other circumstances, more determinately; or the completion of some prophecies affords new light for the interpretation of others, that are unfulfilled. Yet neither are we to conceive that those fresh prophecies, or this new light removes all obscurity: enough is still left to prevent or disappoint the efforts of presumption; and only so much additional clearness is bestowed on the prophecy, as the revealer saw fit to indulge to those who lived nearer the time of its completion.

But this is not all: By looking into that plan of providence, which respects Jesus, and the ends to be accomplished by him, as it is drawn out in the sacred writings, we find a distinct reason for the obscurity of the prophecies, relative to that subject.

We there find it to have been in the order of the divine councils, that, between the first dawnings of revelation and the fuller light of the Gospel, an intermediate and very singular œconomy, yet still preparatory to that of Jesus, should be instituted. This œconomy (for reasons, which it is not to our present purpose to deduce, and for some, no doubt, which we should in vain attempt to discover) was to continue for many ages, and while it continued, was to be had in honour among that people, for whom it was more immediately designed. But now the genius of those two dispensations, the Jewish, I mean, and the Christian, being wholly different; the one, carnal, and enforced by temporal sanctions only, the other, spiritual, and established on better promises, the prophets, who lived under the former of these dispensations (and the greater part of those, who prophesied of Jesus, lived under it) were of course so to predict the future œconomy, as not to disgrace the present. They were to respect the Law, even while they announced the Gospel, which was, in due time, to supersede it[26].

So much, we will say, was to be discovered as might erect the thoughts of men towards some better scheme of things, hereafter to be introduced; certainly so much, as might sufficiently evince the divine intention in that scheme, when it should actually take place; but not enough to indispose them towards that state of discipline, under the yoke of which they were then held. From this double purpose, would clearly result that character, in the prophecies concerning the new dispensation, which we find impressed upon them; and which St. Peter well describes, when he speaks of them, as dispensing a light indeed, but a light shining in a dark place.

Upon the whole, the delivery of prophecy seems well suited to that dispensation which it was given to attest. If the object in view had been one single event, to be accomplished all at once, it might perhaps be expected that the prophecies concerning it would have been clear and precise. But, if the scheme of Christianity be what the scriptures represent it to be, a scheme, commencing from the foundation of the world, and unfolding itself by just degrees through a long succession of ages, and to be fully accomplished only at the consummation of all things, prophecy, which was given to attend on that scheme, and to furnish a suitable attestation to it, must needs be supposed to adapt itself to the nature of the dispensation; that is, to have different degrees of clearness or obscurity according to its place in the general system; and not to disclose more of it, or in clearer terms, at any one period, than might consist with the various ends of wisdom which were to be served by the gradual opening of so vast and intricate a scene.

Another circumstance, of affinity with this, is apt to strike us, in the contemplation of the scriptural prophecies. There is reason to believe that more than one sense was purposely inclosed in some of them; and we find, in fact, that the writers of the New Testament give to many of the old prophecies an interpretation very different and remote from that which may be reasonably thought the primary and immediate view of the prophets themselves. This is what Divines call the DOUBLE SENSE of prophecy: by which they mean an accomplishment of it in more events than one; in the same system indeed; but at distant intervals, and under different parts of that system.

Now, as suspicious as this circumstance may appear at first sight, it will be found, on inquiry, to be exactly suited to that idea of prophecy which the text gives us of it, as being, from the first, and all along, intended to bear Testimony to Jesus. For from that idea I conclude again,

II. “That prophecies of a double sense may well be expected in such a scheme.”

And where is the wonder that, if prophecy was given to attest the coming of Jesus and the dispensation to be erected by him, it should occasionally, in every stage of it, respect its main purpose; and, though the immediate object be some other, it should never lose sight of that, in which it was ultimately to find its repose and end?

It hath been before observed, That, between the earlier notices concerning Jesus, and the advent of that great person, it seemed good to infinite wisdom (I speak in terms, suited to the representation of scripture) to institute the intermediate œconomy of the Jewish Law. Among other provisions for the administration of this Law, prophecy was one; and, upon its own pretensions, a necessary one; for the government claims to be strictly theocratical; and the people, to be governed by it, were to be made sensible, at every step, that it was so. Therefore the interesting events in their civil history were to be regarded by them, as coming within the cognisance, and lying under the controul, of their divine governour: to which end, a race of men were successively raised up among them, to give them warning of those events, and, by this divine foresight of what was seen to be accomplished in their history, to afford a clear conviction, that they were, in fact, under that peculiar government.

Add to this, that the Law itself, so wonderfully constructed, was but a part, indeed the rudiments, of one great scheme; was given, not for its own sake, but to make way for a still nobler and more generous institution; was, in truth, a preparatory state of discipline, or pædagogy, as St. Paul terms it, to bring the subjects of it, in due time, to Christ[27].

Jesus then, the object of the earliest prophecies, was not overlooked in this following dispensation; which was, indeed, instinct with presages of that divine person. It gave the shadow of good things to come, but the body was of Christ[28]. The legal prophets, in like manner, while they were immediately employed, and perhaps believed themselves to be solely employed, in predicting the occurrences of the Jewish state, were at the same time, preluding, as it were, to the person and dispensation of Jesus; the holy Spirit, which inspired them, bearing out their expression, and enlarging their conceptions, beyond the worth and size of those objects, which came directly in their view.

There is nothing in this account of prophecy, but what falls in with our best ideas of the divine wisdom; intently prosecuting one entire scheme; and directing the constituent parts of it to the general purpose of his providence, at the same time that each serves to accomplish its own.

This double, or secondary sense of prophecy was so far from giving offence to Lord Bacon, that he speaks of it with admiration, as one striking argument of its Divinity. In sorting the prophecies of scripture with their events (a work much desired by this wise author, and intended by this Lecture) we must allow, says he, for that latitude which is agreeable and familiar unto divine prophecies, being of the nature of the author, with whom a thousand years are but as one day; and therefore they are not fulfilled punctually at once, but have springing and germinant accomplishment throughout many ages, though the height or fulness of them may refer to some one age[29].

But, that we may not mistake, or pervert, this fine observation of our great philosopher, it may be proper to take notice, that the reason of it holds in such prophecies only as respect the several successive parts of one system; which, being intimately connected together, may be supposed to come within the view and contemplation of the same prophecy: whereas it would be endless, and one sees not on what grounds of reason we are authorized, to look out for the accomplishment of prophecy in any casual unrelated events of general history. The Scripture speaks of prophecy, as respecting Jesus, that is, as being one connected scheme of Providence, of which the Jewish dispensation makes a part: so that here we are led to expect that springing and germinant accomplishment, which is mentioned. But had the Jewish Law been complete in itself, and totally unrelated to the Christian, the general principle—that a thousand years are with God but as one day—would no more justify us in extending a Jewish prophecy to Christian events, because perhaps it was eminently fulfilled in them, than it would justify us in extending it to any other signally corresponding events whatsoever. It is only when the prophet hath one uniform connected design before him, that we are authorised to use this latitude of interpretation. For then the prophetic spirit naturally runs along the several parts of such design, and unites the remotest events with the nearest: the style of the prophet, in the mean time, so adapting itself to this double prospect, as to paint the near and subordinate event in terms that emphatically represent the distant and more considerable.

So that, with this explanation, nothing can be more just or philosophical, than the idea which Lord Bacon suggests of divine prophecy.

The great scheme of Redemption, we are now considering, being the only scheme in the plan of Providence, which, as far as we know, hath been prepared and dignified by a continued system of prophecy, at least this being the only scheme to which we have seen a prophetic system applied, men do not so readily apprehend the doctrine of double senses in prophecy, as they would do, if they saw it exemplified in other cases. But what the history of mankind does not supply, we may represent to ourselves by many obvious suppositions; which cannot justify, indeed, such a scheme of things, but may facilitate the conception of it.

Suppose, for instance, that it had been the purpose of the Deity (as it unquestionably was) to erect the FREE GOVERNMENT of ancient Rome; and that, from the time of Æneas’ landing in Italy, he had given prophetic intimations of this purpose. Suppose, further, that he had seen fit, for the better discipline of his favoured people, to place them, for a season, under the yoke of the Regal government; and that, during that state of things, he had instructed his prophets to foretell the wars and other occurrences which should distinguish that period of their history.—Here would be a case somewhat similar to that of the Jews under their theocratic regimen: not exactly indeed, because prophecy, as we have seen, was essential to the Jewish polity, but had nothing to do with the regal, or any other polity of the Romans. But allow for this difference, and suppose that, for some reason or other, the spirit of prophecy was indulged to this people, under their kings, as it was to the Jews, under their theocracy; and that it was primarily employed in the same way, that is, in predicting their various fortunes under that regimen: Suppose, I say, all this, and would it surprize us to find that their prophets, in dilating on this part of their scheme, should, in a secondary sense, predict the future and more splendid part of it? That, having the whole equally presented to their view, they should anticipate the coming glories of their free state, even in a prophecy which directly concerned their regal, and much humbler successes? That, in commenting on their petty victories over the Sabins and Latins, they should drop some hints that pointed at their African and Asiatic triumphs; or, in tracing the shadow of freedom they enjoyed under the best of their kings, they should let fall some strokes, that more expressly designed the substantial liberty of their equal republic: the end, as we suppose, and completion of that scheme, for the sake of which the prophetic power itself had been communicated to them? Still more: supposing we had such prophecies now in our hands, and that we found them applicable indeed in a general way to the former parts of their history, but frequently more expressive of events in the latter, should we doubt of their being prophecies in a double sense, or should we think it strange that two successive and dependent dispensations in the same connected scheme should be, at once, the object of the same predictions? And lastly, to put an end to these questions, could there seem to be equal reason for applying these predictions to such events as might possibly correspond to them in some other history, the Græcian, for instance, as for applying them to similar events in the Roman history?

Let me just observe further, that, from what hath been said under these two articles, we may clearly discern the difference between Pagan oracles, and Scriptural prophecies. Both have been termed obscure and ambiguous; and an invidious parallel hath been made, or insinuated, between them[30]. The Pagan oracles were indeed obscure, sometimes to a degree that no reasonable sense could be made of them: they were also ambiguous, in the worst sense; I mean, so as to admit contrary interpretations. The scriptural prophecies we own to be obscure, to a certain degree: And we may call them, too, ambiguous; because they contained two, consistent, indeed, but different meanings. But here is the distinction, I would point out to you. The obscurity and ambiguity of the Pagan oracles had no necessary, or reasonable cause in the subject, on which they turned: the obscurity and ambiguity of the scriptural prophecies have an evident reason in the system, to which they belong. As the Pagan predictions had near and single events for their object, the fate perhaps of some depending war, or the success of some council, then in agitation, they might have been clearly and precisely delivered; and in fact we find that such of the Jewish predictions as foretold events of that sort and character, were so delivered: But, the scriptural prophecies under consideration respecting one immense scheme of Providence, it might be expedient that the remoter parts should be obscurely revealed; as it was surely natural that the connected parts of such a scheme should be shewn together.

We see then what force there is in that question, which is asked with so much confidence—“Is it possible, that the same character can be due to the Jewish prophecies, which the wise and virtuous in the heathen world considered as an argument of fraud and falshood in the Pythian prophecies[31]?”

First, we say, the character is not entirely the same in both: and, secondly, that, so far as it is the same, that character is very becoming in the Jewish, but utterly absurd in the Pythian prophecies. What was owing to fraud or ignorance in the Pagan Diviner, is reasonably ascribed to the depth and height of that wisdom, which informed the Jewish Prophet[32].

To proceed with our subject. It further appears,

III. On the grounds of the text, we now stand upon, “to be very conceiveable and credible that the line of prophecy should run chiefly in one family and people, as we are informed it did, and that the other nations of the earth should be no further the immediate objects of it, than as they chanced to be connected with that people.”

Prophecy, in the ideas of scripture, was not ultimately given for the private use of this or that nation, nor yet for the nobler and more general purpose of proclaiming the superintending providence of the Deity (an awful truth, which men might collect for themselves from the established constitution of nature) but simply to evidence the truth of the Christian revelation. It was therefore confined to one nation, purposely set apart to preserve and attest the oracles of God; and to exhibit, in their public records and whole history, the proofs and credentials of an amazing dispensation, which God had decreed to accomplish in Christ Jesus[33].

This conclusion, I say, seems naturally and fairly drawn from the great principle, that the spirit of prophecy was the testimony of Jesus, because the means appear to be well suited and proportioned to the end. The Testimony thought fit to be given, was not one or two prophecies only, but a scheme of prophecy, gradually prepared and continued through a large tract of time. But how could such a scheme be executed, or rather how could it clearly be seen that there was such a scheme in view, if some one people had not been made the repository, and, in part, the instrument of the divine counsels, in regard to Jesus; some one people, I say, among whom we might trace the several parts of such a scheme, and observe the dependance they had on each other; that so the idea, of what we call a scheme, might be duly impressed upon us?

For, had the notices concerning the Redeemer been dispersed indifferently among all nations, where had been that uncorrupt and unsuspected testimony, that continuity of evidence, that unbroken chain of prediction, all tending, by just degrees, to the same point, which we now contemplate with wonder in the Jewish scriptures?

It is not then that the rest of the world was overlooked[34] in the plan of God’s providence, but that he saw fit to employ the ministry of one people: This last, I say, and not the other, is the reason why the divine communications concerning Christ were appropriated to the Jews.

Yes, but “some one of the greater nations had better been intrusted with that charge.” This circumstance, I allow, might have struck a superficial observer more: but could the integrity of the prophetic scheme have been more discernible amidst the multiform and infinitely involved transactions of a mighty people, than in the simpler story of this small Jewish family; or would the hand or work of God, who loves to manifest himself by weak instruments, have been more conspicuous in that designation?

On the whole, I forget not, with what awful diffidence it becomes us to reason on such subjects. But the fact being, that one, in preference to other nations, had the honour of conveying the prophetic admonitions concerning Jesus, it may be allowable to inquire, with modesty, into the reasons of that appointment, and the end of prophecy being clearly assigned in sacred scripture, such reasons will not be hastily rejected, as obviously present themselves to an inquirer from the consideration of that end.

The benefits of prophecy, though conveyed by one nation, would finally redound to all; and the more effectually, we have seen, for being conveyed by one nation. May we not conclude then (having the fact, as I said, to reason upon) that, to obtain such purpose, it was fit to select a peculiar people? And, if thus much be acknowledged, it will hardly be thought a question of much moment, though no answer could be given to it, why the Jews had that exclusive privilege conferred upon them.

It is true, a great scheme of prophecy was once revealed to a Gentile King[35]; but a King, connected with the Jews, and who had a Jewish prophet for his interpreter. It is, besides, observable of that prophetic scheme, that it laid open the future fortunes of four great empires; but all of them instruments in the hand of God to carry on his designs, on the Jewish people first, but ultimately, with regard to Jesus. For it hath been remarked with equal truth and penetration, that Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of the four kingdoms was designed, as a sort of prophetic chronology, to point out, by a series of successive empires, the beginning and end of Christ’s spiritual Kingdom. So that the reason, why those four empires only were distinguished by the spirit of prophecy, was, not because they were greater than all others, but simply because the course of their history led, in a regular and direct succession, to the times and reign of Christ[36].

We see then, on the principle, that prophecy was given for the sake of Jesus only, that no presumption lies against the truth of it, on account of its respecting chiefly one people, how inconsiderable soever in itself, or from its silence in regard to some of the largest and most flourishing kingdoms that have appeared in the world.

IV. Lastly (for I now hasten to an end of this discourse) I infer from the same principle, “That, if, even after a mature consideration of the prophecies, and of the events, in which they are taken to be fulfilled, there should, after all, be some cloud remaining on this subject, which with all our wit or pains we cannot wholly remove, this state of things would afford no objection to prophecy, because it is indeed no other than we might reasonably expect.”

For, 1. If Jesus be the end of prophecy, the same reasons that made it fit to deliver some predictions darkly, will further account to us for some degree of obscurity in the application of them to their corresponding events.

I say—will account to us for such obscurity—for, whatever those reasons were, they could not have taken effect, but by the intervention of such means, as must darken in some degree, the application of a prophecy, even after the accomplishment of it; unless we say, that an object can be seen as distinctly through a veil, as without one. For instance: figurative language is the chief of those means, by which it pleased the inspirer to throw a shade on prophecies, unfulfilled; but figurative language, from the nature of it, is not so precise and clear, as literal expression, even when the event prefigured has lent its aid to illustrate and explain that language.

If then it was fit that some prophecies concerning Jesus should be delivered obscurely, it cannot be supposed that such prophecies, when they come to be applied, will acquire a full and absolute perspicuity[37].

2. If the dispensation of Jesus be the main subject of the prophecies, then may some of them be still impenetrable to us, because the various fortunes of that dispensation are not yet perfectly disclosed, and so some of them may not hitherto have been fulfilled. But the completion of a prophecy is that which gives the utmost degree of clearness, of which it is capable.

3. But lastly and chiefly, if the end and use of prophecy be to attest the truth of Christianity, then may we be sure that such attestation will not carry with it the utmost degree of evidence. For Christianity is plainly a state of discipline and probation: calculated to improve our moral nature, by giving scope and exercise to our moral faculties. So that, though the evidence for it be real evidence, and on the whole sufficient evidence, yet neither can we expect it to be of that sort which should compel our assent. Something must be left to quicken our attention, to excite our industry, and to try the natural ingenuity of the human mind.

Had the purpose of prophecy been to shew, merely, that a predicted event was foreseen, then the end had been best answered by throwing all possible evidence into the completion. But its concern being to shew this to such only as should be disposed to admit a reasonable degree of evidence, it was not necessary, or rather it was plainly not fit, that the completion should be seen in that strong and irresistible light[38].

For all the reasons, now given, (and doubtless, for many more) it was to be expected, that prophecy would not be one cloudless emanation of light and glory. If it be clear enough to serve the ends, for which it was designed; if through all its obscurities, we be able to trace the hand and intention of its divine author; what more would we have? How improvidently, indeed, do we ask more of that great Being, who, for the sake of the natural world, clothes the heavens with blackness [Is. 1. 3.]; and in equal mercy to the moral world, veils his nature and providence in thick clouds, and makes darkness his pavilion [Ps. xviii. 11]?

To these deductions from the text, more might be added. For I believe it will be found that if the end of prophecy, as here delivered, be steddily kept in view and diligently pursued, it will go a great way towards leading us to a prosperous issue in most of those inquiries, which are thought to perplex this subject. But I mean to reason from it no farther than just to shew, in the way of specimen, the method in which it becomes us to speculate on the prophetic system. We are not to imagine principles, at pleasure, and then apply them to that system. But we are, first, to find out what the principles are, on which prophecy is founded, and by which it claims to be tried; and then to see whether they will hold, that is, whether they will aptly and properly apply to the particulars, of which it is compounded. If they will, the system itself is thus far clearly justified. All that remains is to compare the prophecies with their corresponding events, in order to assure ourselves that there is real evidence of their completion.

The use of this method has been shewn in FOUR capital instances. It is objected to the scriptural prophecies, that they are obscure—that they abound in double senses—that they were delivered to one people—that, after all, there is sometimes difficulty in making out the completion—all of them, it is said, very suspicious circumstances; and which rather indicate a scheme of human contrivance, than of divine inspiration.

To these objections it is replied, that, from the very idea which the scriptures themselves give of prophecy, these circumstances must needs be found in it; and further still, that these circumstances, when fairly considered, do honour to that idea: for that the obscurity, complained of, results, from the immensity of the scheme—the double senses, from the intimate connection of its parts—the partial and confined delivery, from the wisdom and necessity of selecting a peculiar people to be the vehicle and repository of the sacred oracles—And lastly, the incomplete evidence, from the nature of the subject, and from the moral genius of that dispensation, to which the scheme of prophecy itself belongs.

In conclusion, it is now seen to what purpose these preliminary discourses serve, and in what method they have been conducted.

The FIRST, shewed the vanity and folly of reasoning on the subject of scriptural prophecy from our preconceived fancies and arbitrary assumptions. The SECOND, shewed the only true way of reasoning upon it to be from scriptural principles, and then opened and explained one such principle. In this LAST, I have shewn that, by prosecuting this way of reasoning from the principle assigned, some of the more specious objections to the scriptural prophecies are easily obviated.

Taken together, these three discourses serve to illustrate the general idea of prophecy, considered as one great scheme of testimony to the religion of Jesus; and consequently open a way for the fair and equitable consideration of particular prophecies, the more immediate subject of this Lecture.

SERMON IV.
THE GENERAL ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY.
John xiii. 19.

Now I tell you before it come, that when it is come to pass, ye may believe, that I am He.

It hath been concluded (not on the slight grounds of hypothesis, but on the express authority of scripture,) that prophecy was given to attest the mission of Jesus: to afford a reasonable evidence, that the scheme of redemption, of which he was the great instrument and minister, was, in truth, of divine appointment; and was carried on under the immediate cognizance and direction of the Supreme Being, whose prerogative it is to see through all time, and to call those things, which be not, as though they were[39].

Our next inquiry will be, how the prophetic scriptures serve to that end, and what that evidence is (I mean, taking for granted, not the truth of the prophetic scheme itself, but the truth of the representation, given of it in scripture) which is thus administered to us by the light of prophecy.

I. The text refers to a particular prophecy of our Lord, concerning the treachery of Judas; of which, says he to his disciples, I now tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am He: that is, “I add this, to the other predictions concerning myself; that, when ye see it fulfilled, as it soon will be, ye may be the more convinced of my being the person, I assume to be, the Messias foretold.”

The information, here given, was perhaps intended by our Lord to serve a particular purpose, To prevent, we will say, the offence, which the disciples might have taken at the circumstance of his being betrayed by one of them, if they had not, previously, been admonished of it. But the reason of the thing shews, that the use, which the disciples are directed to make of this prophecy, was the general use of the prophecies concerning Jesus. The completion was to verify the prediction, in all cases; and to convince the world, That He was the Messiah, in whom such things should be seen to be accomplished, as had been expressly foretold[40].

Indeed prophecies, unaccomplished, may have their use; that is, they may serve to raise a general expectation of a predicted event in the minds of those, who, for other reasons, regard the person predicting it, in the light of a true prophet. And such might be one, a subordinate, use of the prophecies concerning Jesus: but they could not be applied to the proof of his pretensions, till they were seen to be fulfilled. Nor can they be so applied even then, unless the things predicted be, confessedly, beyond the reach of human foresight.

Under these conditions, the argument is clear and easy, and will lie thus.—“A great variety of distant, or, at least, future events, inscrutable to human sagacity, and respecting one person (whom we will call, Messiah) have been by different men, and at different times, predicted. These events have accordingly come to pass, in the history and fortunes of one person; in such sort, that each is seen to be, in a proper sense, fulfilled in him, and all together in no other person whatsoever: Therefore the prediction of these events was divinely inspired: or (which comes to the same thing) therefore the person, claiming under these predictions to be the Messiah, or person foretold, hath his claims confirmed and justified by the highest authority, that of God himself.”

Such is the argument from prophecy[41]: and on this foundation, Jesus assumes to be the Messiah; and his religion, to be DIVINE.

II. Let us now see, what the amount of that evidence is, which results from this kind of proof.

Careless talkers may say, and sometimes think, “that prophecy is but an art of conjecturing shrewdly; that the sagacity of one man is seen to be vastly superior to that of another; that, in some men, the natural faculty may be so improved by experience, as to look like divination; and that no precise bounds can be set to its powers.” Light or sceptical minds may, I say, amuse themselves with such fancies: but serious men will readily acknowledge, That many future events, especially, if remote, or extraordinary[42], or described with some degree of particularity, are not within the ability of the human mind to predict. And, to cut off all occasion of cavil, let it be owned, that the argument under consideration is, or ought to be, drawn from the completion of prophecies, so qualified.

To evade the force, which this argument apparently carries with it, it must then be said, That the completion of any particular prophecy, alleged, was fortuitous, or, what we call, a lucky hit.

“Coincidencies of this sort, we may be told, are very frequent. In the ceaseless revolution of human affairs, some event or other will be turning up, which may give a countenance to the wildest and most hazardous conjecture. Hence it is, that every groundless fear, every dream, almost, has the appearance of being realized by some corresponding accident; which will not be long in occurring to those, who are upon the watch to make such discoveries. Upon these grounds, the superstition of omens hath, at all times, been able to sustain itself; and to acquire a degree of credit, even with wise men. We see, then, that chance, in a good degree, supplies the place of inspiration: and that He, who sets up for a Prophet, is likely to drive a safe, as well as gainful trade; especially, if he have but the discretion not to deal too freely in precise descriptions of times, and persons[43]: a consideration, of great moment to the men of this craft[44]; and which hath not been overlooked by those, whom we account true prophets.”

Such libertine reflections, as these, thrown out with an air of negligent ridicule, have too often the effect intended by them. At the same time, they disgust sober men, and are thought too light and trivial to deserve a confutation. But, because I take these suggestions, with whatever levity, or disingenuity, they may be made, to contain the whole, or at least, the chief strength of the infidel cause, on this subject, I shall not decline to give them a very serious answer.

It is true, no doubt, what is here alledged, That the conjectures of fanciful or designing men, whether grounded on casual signs, or delivered in the direct way of prophecy, have been frequently verified in the events: that is, such events have actually come to pass, in the sense put upon the sign, when it was observed, and in the literal sense of the prophecy, as delivered. History and common life, it is agreed, abound in such instances[45]: and I shall even make no scruple to produce one of each sort; as much, at least, to the purpose of these objectors, as any of those, which they have produced for themselves.

Nothing is more famous in the annals of ancient Rome, than the story of Romulus, and his TWELVE VULTURES; an omen this, on which the auspicious name of the rising city, and the fortune of its founder, were, at once, established[46]. What further construction was then put on this prodigy, doth not appear: but, as the science of augury advanced in succeeding times, a very momentous and striking prophecy was grounded upon it. For we have it affirmed[47], on the high authority of M. T. Varro, that Vettius Valens, an augur of distinguished name in those days, took occasion from this circumstance (and in the hearing of Varro himself) to fix the duration of the Roman empire. The TWELVE VULTURES, he said, which appeared to Romulus, portended, that the sovereignty of that state and city, whose foundations he was then laying, should continue for the space of TWELVE HUNDRED YEARS. It is of no moment to inquire, on what principles of his art the learned augur proceeded, in this calculation. The TRUTH is, that the event corresponded, in a surprising manner, to the conjecture; and that the majesty of the Western empire (of which Rome was the capital) did, indeed, expire under the merciless hands of the Goths, about the time limited by this augural prophet.

It should further, be observed that this prediction was of such credit and notoriety, as to take the attention of the later Romans themselves[48], who looked with anxiety for the accomplishment of it: and that it was delivered by Valens, at least five hundred years before the event; when there was not the least appearance, that this catastrophe would befall, what was called, the ETERNAL CITY, within that period.

This is an instance of divination from augury. The OTHER, I am about to give, is a prophecy, in full form; respecting a still more important subject, and equally accomplished in the event. A poet, in the ideas of paganism, was a prophet, too. And Seneca[49] hath left us, in proof of the inspiration to which, in his double capacity, he might pretend, the following oracle:

——venient annis
Secula seris, quibus Oceanus
Vincula rerum laxet, et ingens
Pateat tellus, Tiphysque novos
Detegat orbes; nec sit terris
Ultima Thule.

This prediction was made in the reign of Nero; and, for more than fourteen hundred years, might only pass for one of those sallies of imagination, in which poetry so much delights. But, when, at length, in the close of the fifteenth century, the discoveries of Columbus had realized this vision: when that enterprizing navigator had forced the barriers of the vast Atlantic ocean; had loosened, what the poet calls, the chain of things; and in these later ages[50], as was expressly signified, had set at liberty an immense continent, shut up before in surrounding seas from the commerce and acquaintance of our world; when this event, I say, so important and so unexpected, came to pass, it might almost surprize one into the belief, that the prediction was something more than a poetical fancy; and that Heaven had, indeed, revealed to one favoured Spaniard, what it had decreed, in due time, to accomplish under the auspices of another[51].

These two instances of casual conjecture, converted by time and accident into prophecies, I shall take for granted, are as remarkable, as any other that can be alledged. Cicero, in his first book of Divination, where he laboured to assert the reality of such a power in the pagan world, was able to produce nothing equal, or comparable to them. We have the fullest evidence, that these two predictions were delivered by the persons, to whom they are ascribed; and in the time, in which they are said to have been delivered, that is, many hundred years before the event. They, both of them, respect events of the greatest dignity and importance: one of them, the downfal of the mightiest empire, that hath hitherto subsisted on the face of the earth; and the other, the discovery of a new world. Both, express the time, when these extraordinary events were to happen: the latter, by a general description, indeed, yet not more general, than is frequent in the scriptural prophets; but the former, in the most precise and limited terms. In a word, both these predictions are authentic, important, circumstantial: they foretell events, which no human sagacity could have foreseen; and they have been strictly and properly fulfilled.

Now, if such coincidencies, as these, do not infer divine inspiration; if, notwithstanding all appearances to the contrary, it must still be allowed (as it will, on all sides) that they were simply fortuitous, or what we call the effects of hazard and pure chance, by what characters shall we distinguish genuine, from pretended, prophecies; or in what way shall it be discovered, that the scriptural prophets spake by the spirit of God, when these pagan diviners could thus prophecy, by their own spirit?

To this objection, put with all the force which I am able to give to it, I reply directly, That the distinction, so importunately demanded, may very easily and clearly be assigned.

If one or two such prophecies, only, had occurred in our scriptures; if even several such had occurred in the whole extent of those writings, and in the large compass of time they take up, without descending to a greater detail than is expressed in these pagan oracles; nay, if a greater number still of supposed predictions, thus generally delivered in the sacred writings, had been applicable only to single independent events, dispersed indifferently through the several ages of the world: In all these cases, I should freely admit, that the argument from prophecy was very precarious and unsatisfactory: I could even suppose, with the deriders of this argument, that so many, and such prophecies, so directed, might not improbably be accounted for, from some odd conjuncture of circumstances; and that the accomplishment of them did by no means infer a certainty of inspiration.

But, if now, on the other hand, it be indisputable, That a vast variety of predictions are to be found in the scriptures of the Old and New Testament; That a great part of these predictions are delivered with the utmost degree of minuteness and particularity; and, lastly, That all of them, whether general or particular, respect one common subject, and profess to have, or to expect, their completion in one connected scheme of things, and, upon the matter, in one single person: On this latter supposition, I must still think, that there is great reason to admit the divine inspiration of such prophecies, when seen to be fulfilled.

To convert this supposition into a proof, is not within the scope and purpose of this Lecture. The work hath been undertaken and discharged by many others: or, it may be sufficient, in so clear a point, to refer you directly to the Scriptures themselves; which no man can read without seeing, that the prophecies, contained in them, are extremely numerous—that many of these prophecies are minutely circumstantial—and that one person, whoever he be, is the principal object of them all. My concern, at present, is only to shew, that, if the supposition itself be well founded, the inference, just now mentioned, is rightly made.

1. First, then, if the prophecies in the Old and New Testament be very numerous, and if those prophecies, so many of them, I mean, as are alledged in this controversy with unbelievers, have had a reasonable completion (and I have a right to make this last supposition, when the question is concerning the account to be given of such a fact): If, I say, we argue from these two assumptions, it must appear highly credible and probable, that so numerous prophecies, so fulfilled, had not their origin from human conjecture, nor their accomplishment from what we call, Chance. For mere conjecture is not usually so happy; nor chance, so constant[52]. Further still; if the scriptural prophecies have been completed in numerous instances, and if in no instance whatsoever can it be clearly shewn that they have failed in the event, the presumption is still stronger, that such coincidence could not be fortuitous; and a material difference between scriptural prophecy, and pagan divination is, at the same time, pointed out. For, that, in the multitude of pretended oracles in the days of paganism, some few only should come to pass, while the generality of them fell to the ground, may well be the sport of fortune[53]. But, that very many prophecies, recorded in our scriptures, have had an evident completion, when not one of all those, there recorded, can be convicted of imposture, must surely be the work of design.

The argument cannot be denied to have real weight, though the expression of all the prophecies were allowed to be general. But this is, by no means, the case. It is further assumed, and is evident to all that have read the Scriptures, that a great number of them are delivered with the utmost degree of minuteness and particularity. And, from this assumption, I infer,

2. Secondly, that the accomplishment of prophecies, so circumstantially defined, can still less be imputed to mere chance.

Without doubt, if all the prophecies concerning the Messiah had been penned in the style of the first—that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head—though even then there might be reason for applying them, exclusively, to the person of Christ, yet, the evidence, that they were intended to be so applied, would have been much obscured by the mode of expression; the wide cover of which might seem to afford room for other applications. But when, to this general prophecy, the theme of all succeeding ones, it is further added, That this seed of the woman, should be the seed of Abraham; of the tribe of Juda; of the family of David; that he should be born at Bethlehem; that he should appear in the world at a time, limited by certain events, and even precisely determined to a certain period:—when, after a particular description of his life and office, it is said of him, that he should be betrayed by an intimate friend; and sold for a price, exactly specified; that he should suffer a particular kind of death; should have his hands and feet pierced; should have vinegar given him to drink; and should be buried in the sepulchre of a rich man—with innumerable other particularities of the like nature[54]—When all this, I say, is considered; the improbability, that these specific characters should meet in the same person by chance, is so great, that a reasonable man will scarce venture on so hazardous a position.

3. Still this is not all. Were we at liberty to apply even numerous, and circumstantial prophecies, to any person, indifferently, whom they might suit, and to any events indiscriminately, to which they might correspond, sought out at large in the history of mankind, the force of the argument for design in such prophecies, might in good measure be eluded. But, when we reflect on what, in part, hath appeared under the last article, that all the scriptural predictions profess to respect one certain scheme of things; run in the line of one people; and point ultimately at one person, whose country, and family, and age, and birth-place are exactly defined; the application of them is so limited and restrained, that, if they suit at all, there is scarce a possibility of excluding actual foresight, and intention.

Let me, further, observe, that, as, upon this idea of a confined, connected, and dependent scheme, in the prophecies, the detection of imposture, if there be any, is much facilitated; so, on the other hand, if the prophecies can be fairly applied in this way, not only the presumption, that they were given to be so applied, is much increased, but a clearer insight into the scope and meaning of them, is obtained. For, in a system of prophecy, directed to one and the same general end, preceding prophecies prepare the way for interpreting those that follow, and every succeeding prophecy reflects some light on those that went before. Thus, the general evidence, arising from this species of argument, is, in all ways, augmented; while we see, that less room is left to chance in verifying the more clear and direct prophecies, and that fresh light is let in upon such as are more ambiguous or obscure.

It is said, that many passages in the prophets are applied to Jesus, on very slight grounds. This would be true, if the prophetic scriptures, like the pagan oracles, had no determinate scheme in view, and had, for their object, only detached and unconnected events. But, on this scriptural principle, that one common purpose is in the contemplation of that divine spirit, which dictated all those writings, That is expressed, which is barely intimated; and every applicable prophecy is rightly applied: whence it is, that even secondary prophecies have, in the system of revelation, all the light and force of the primary; as, in a former discourse, hath been observed.

This assertion, I know, may startle such persons, as have not attended to the genius of the prophetic writings, or to that general harmony of design and destination, which makes their distinctive character: but it may be rendered familiar to us by reflecting on the manner, in which we interpret other writings, somewhat similar to these.

It is generally supposed, and on good grounds, that Virgil wrote his Æneid with the view of doing honour to the person and government of Augustus. But, the subject of his work being taken from a former age, this was either to be done, by introducing his encomiums under the form of prophecies, or by conveying them indirectly in allusive descriptions and, what we call, secondary applications. The poet hath employed both these methods, with success. The purpose of his predictions is clear; for in them the emperor is expressly named: and the ablest critics make no scruple of applying to Augustus all those passages in this poem, which, however they may respect, immediately, other persons, are yet clearly seen to be applicable to Him.

We have another instance of the same sort, at home. Our Spenser wrote his famous poem, to illustrate the virtues and reign of Queen Elizabeth. This we know from himself. Though his scene, therefore, be laid in Faery Land, yet, whenever we find his fictions agreeing to the history of that princess, or the characters of his knights expressive of those virtues, which distinguished the great persons of her court, we make no doubt of applying them in that way, or of the poet’s intending that they should be so applied. These applications would not be equally justifiable in other works of fancy, written in that time; but the knowledge, we have of the author’s general purpose in writing, makes them reasonable in this.

It may appear from these examples[55], that, whenever a general scheme is known to be pursued by a writer, whose real or assumed character gives him a right to deal in secondary senses and prophetic anticipations, that scheme becomes the true key, in the hands of his reader, for unlocking the meaning of particular parts; of many parts, which would otherwise not be seen clearly and distinctly to refer to such scheme. The observation applies to the inspired writers, in all its force. We understand, that they had one common and predominant scheme in view, which was to bear testimony to Jesus. Their writings are, then, to be interpreted in conformity to that scheme. Not only the more direct prophecies require this interpretation; but, if we will judge in this, as we do in other similar instances, whatever passages occur in those writings, which bear an apt and easy resemblance to the history of Jesus, may, or rather must, in all reasonable construction, be applied to him.

Whence we see (to mention it by the way) that, if no prophecy in the Old Testament had applied to Christ directly in its primary sense, Christianity might, yet, support itself on the evidence of prophecy. For the evidence, arising from a secondary sense of prophecies, is real evidence; and was certainly admitted, as such, by that great man[56], whose mistakes on this subject have afforded the occasion of so much vain triumph to infidelity.

Fancy, no doubt, may grow wanton in this sort of applications. It may find, in the prophet or poet, what was never designed by either: but, in the circumstances supposed, the severest reader will not deny, that much was probably designed by both. It is impossible to lay down general rules, that shall prevent all abuse in the interpretation of such writings. But good sense will easily see, in particular cases, where this liberty of interpreting is, in fact, abused.

It is obvious to remark, that this use of prophecy doth not commence, till the corresponding facts can be produced; that is, till the prophecies are seen to be fulfilled. But this circumstance is no discredit to the prophetic system; which pretends not to give immediate conviction, but to lay in, beforehand, the means of conviction to such as shall be in a condition to compare, in due time, the prediction with the event. Till then, prophecy serves only to raise a general expectation of the event predicted; that is, it serves to make men attentive and inquisitive, and to prepare them for that full conviction, which it finally hath in view. And this service, the prophecies of the Old Testament actually did the Jews, who were led by them to expect the Messiah, when he, in fact, appeared among them. And, had they pursued this reasonable method of interpreting the prophecies, not by their prejudices, but by corresponding events, they must have been further led to acknowledge his mission, as being evidently attested by predictions, so fulfilled. But their capital mistake lay in supposing, that their prophecies were sufficiently clear, without the help of any comment from succeeding events; and thus, what they could not see beforehand, they would not acknowledge, when these events came to pass.

It follows from what hath been said, that the obscurity of the Jewish prophecies concludes nothing against the use of those writings, or against the application of them, which Christians now make. Their declared use is posterior to the facts they adumbrate; whence the intervening obscurity of those writings is no just ground of complaint: and the application of them to Jesus, now that history hath taught us to understand them better, is made on principles to which no sober man can object.

On the whole, the general evidence for the truth of Christianity, as resulting from the scriptural prophecies, though possibly not that which some may wish or expect, is yet apparently very considerable. Some coincidencies might fall out, by accident; and more, might be imagined. But when so many, and such prophecies are brought together, and compared with their corresponding events, it becomes ridiculous (because the effect is, in no degree, proportioned to the cause) to say of such coincidencies, that they are the creatures of fancy or could have been the work of chance.

The text supplies the only just account of such a phænomenon: and the spirit of God, methinks, calls aloud to us, in the language of his Son—These things have I told you before they come, that when they come to pass, ye may believe, that I am He.

SERMON V.
PROPHECIES CONCERNING CHRIST’S FIRST COMING.
Isaiah xlii. 9.

Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth, I tell you of them.

The preceding discourses were designed, to open the general idea of prophecy; and to enforce the general argument from it, in proof of our holy Religion.

The way being thus far cleared, we now advance a step farther, and take a nearer view of THE PROPHECIES THEMSELVES.

These prophecies may be considered under two heads. They either respect, the person and character and office of the Messiah; or, the fate and fortunes of that kingdom, which he came to establish in the world.

Divines call the former of these, Prophecies of his FIRST COMING: and the other, Prophecies of his SECOND. Only, it may be proper to observe, That the second advent of the Messiah is not, like the first, confined to one single and precise period, but is gradual and successive. This distinction is founded in the reason of the thing. He could only come, in person, at one limited time. He comes, in his power and his providence, through all ages of the church. His first coming was then over, when he expired on the cross. His second, commenced with his resurrection, and will continue to the end of the world. So that this last coming of Jesus is to be understood of his spiritual kingdom; which is not one act of sovereignty, exerted at once; but a state or constitution of government, subsisting through a long tract of time, unfolding itself by just degrees, and coming, as oft, as the conductor of it thinks fit to interpose by any signal acts of his administration. And in this sense, we are directed to pray, that his kingdom, though long since set up, may come; that is, may advance through all its stages, till it arrive at that full state of glory, in which it shall shine out in the great day, as it is called, the day of judgment.

It will be seen, as we advance in the present inquiry, to what use this distinction serves.

The former set of prophecies are presumed to have had their completion, in the history of Jesus; The latter set, have had, or are to find, their accomplishment, in the history of his Religion; And of THESE only, it is the purpose of this Lecture to speak.

But, though the prophecies of Christ’s first coming (so largely and accurately considered by many great writers) be not the immediate subject of our inquiry, yet they must not be wholly overlooked by us. It will contribute very much to rectify and enlarge our ideas of the divine conduct, in this whole dispensation of prophecy, and to make way for that conviction, which the prophecies of Christ’s second coming were intended to give, if we stop a while to contemplate the method and œconomy of that prophetic system, by which the first advent of the Messiah was announced and prepared.

It is assumed, as a first principle on this subject, That Jesus was the ultimate end and object of all the prophecies[57]: which beginning from the foundation of the world[58], were, afterwards, occasionally delivered through many ages; till at length this great purpose was prosecuted more intently, by a continued and closely-compacted chain of prophecy; as we see, first, in the patriarchal history, but, chiefly, in the history of the Jewish state. For, when this people were selected from the other nations, to answer many wise ends of providence, it pleased God to institute a form of government for them, which could not subsist without his frequent interposition; manifested in such a way as might convince them, that they were under the actual and immediate conduct of their divine sovereign. Hence, it became a part of this singular œconomy, to be administered in the way of Prophecy; by which it would be seen that the hand of God was upon them in all their more important concerns.

Upon this basis of an extraordinary providence, the Jewish government stood: and we are now to see in what manner the prophetic spirit, so essential to that polity, was employed.

1. First, we may observe, that, by means of this provision for their civil regimen, an apt and commodious way was opened for carrying on the divine councils, in regard to Jesus; in whom, indeed, the Law itself was to be fulfilled. For, while the civil affairs of the Jewish people furnished the occasion and substance of their prophecies, the divine wisdom, that inspired the prophets, so contrived, as that their religious concerns should, also, be expressed, or implied in them. The general theme of the prophet, was some, temporal success or calamity of the Jewish state: the secret purpose of the inspirer was, occasionally at least, and when he saw fit, to predict the spiritual kingdom of the Messiah[59].

We have innumerable instances of this sort in the Jewish prophets; but few, more remarkable than that of Isaiah’s prophecy, addressed to Ahaz, king of Judah, concerning his deliverance from the two kings of Samaria and Damascus. In the primary, but lower sense of this prophecy, the sign given was to assure Ahaz, that the land of Judæa should speedily be delivered from its two Royal invaders. But it had likewise another, and more important purpose. The introduction of the prophecy, the singular stress laid upon it, and the exact sense of the terms in which it is expressed, make it probable, in a high degree, that it had some such purpose: and the event hath clearly proved, that the sign given had a respect to the miraculous birth of Christ, and to a deliverance much more momentous than that of Ahaz from his present distressful situation—Hear ye now, O house of David—The Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah, vii. 13, 14. Admit that these words are capable of being explained, in some sort, of the child now given to be a sign, to the King of Judæa, of his deliverance within two or three years, as expressed in the following verses; still, who sees not that terms so emphatical and energetic are more properly understood of another child, to whose birth and character they are found, in the event, to be exactly suited? And, if more properly, who can doubt that these terms are naturally, that is, reasonably understood of that other child, when we consider with what ideas the mind of the prophet was stored, and what the ultimate end and object was, by supposition, of the prophet’s inspiration? The child promised was a sign to Ahaz of his deliverance; yet a sign too, that is, a type, to the house of David, of another deliverance, which they expected, which their prophets had frequently foretold, and which we have here announced in the name of this miraculous child, Immanuel, or eminently, The Deliverer.

There is nothing in this sign[60], thus interpreted, but what is easy and unforced; I mean, if we bear in mind the genius and character of the Jewish prophecies. The former event, signified in the prophecy, was merely civil: the latter, concerned the spiritual kingdom of Christ. They were both predicted together: and the preceding event, when it came to pass, was, further, to induce an expectation, that the other event would, in due time, follow. For

2. Secondly, it appears, that, to excite attention to these SPIRITUAL predictions, more obscure than the other, and regarding events more remote, care was taken to secure the authority of the prophet, by the completion of his civil predictions in events, distinctly described, and near at hand. Thus, Moses might be believed by the Jews in what he said, of a prophet to be raised up, in a future age, like to himself; when they saw his prophetic blessings and curses upon them, according to their deserts in the land of Canaan, so speedily and so punctually executed. Thus, too, their prophet, Isaiah, might reasonably expect to find credit with them, for the glorious things predicted by him of the great deliverer, the Messiah; when their deliverance from the Babylonish captivity was seen so certainly to verify his prediction of that event. The prophet himself exults in this argument, as decisive and unanswerable. Behold, says he, in the text, the former things are come to pass, i. e. the prophecies, I have delivered to you concerning your redemption from the Assyrian bondage, will soon be so exactly completed, that I regard them as things past; and therefore new things do I declare; hence I claim your belief of other prophecies, concerning a much greater redemption, to take place hereafter, though there be no appearance, as yet, of any causes tending to produce it, for before they spring forth, I tell you of them. And this appears to be the general method of all God’s prophets.

3. With these new things, these Spiritual prophecies concerning the first coming of the Messiah, were likewise intermixed other prophecies, which ran out beyond that term, and prefigured the great events of his SECOND coming: and the warrant for admitting these, would be the completion of those other prophecies, in the person and sufferings of Christ[61]. That there are such prophecies in the Old Testament, will be shewn hereafter. In the mean time, it will not be thought incredible, that, if Jesus be indeed the end of the prophetic scheme, the revolutions of his government should be foretold, as well as the circumstances of his personal appearance; in other words, that the consummation of that design, which Providence was carrying on, would not be overlooked, when the steps and gradations of it were so distinctly noted. For, in any reasonable design whatsoever, the end is first and principally in view, though the means engage, and may seem to engross, the attention of its author. It will then, I say, be no surprise to us to find, that prophecy set out with announcing the kingdom of the Messiah; that it never lost sight of that future œconomy; and only produced it into clearer view, as the season approached for the introduction of it.

Thus much concerning the order and method of the Jewish prophecies; in which one cannot but adore the profound wisdom of their author. The civil prophecies are, at once, the vehicle, and the credentials, of the spiritual, concerning the first coming of Jesus; and these last, in their turn, support the credit of others, which point still further at his second coming: a subject, more than intimated by the legal prophets, but resumed and amply displayed by the evangelical. Whence we see, that the prophetic system is so constructed, as, in the progress and various evolutions of it, to illustrate itself, and to afford an internal evidence of its divinity. One great purpose pervades the whole: and the parts, of which it consists, gradually prepare and mutually sustain each other.

But this subject, so curious and important, is not yet to be dismissed. It remains to be considered, whether chance, or imposture, can in any degree account for so extensive, so connected, and so intricate a system.

On the very face of the prophetic scriptures it appears, that one ultimate purpose is in the contemplation of all the prophets. This purpose is unfolded by successive predictions, delivered in distant times, under different circumstances, and by persons, who cannot be suspected of acting in concert with each other. It does not appear, that the later prophets always understood the drift of the more ancient; or, that either of them clearly apprehended the whole scope and purpose of their own predictions. Yet, on comparing all their numerous prophecies with each other, and with the events, in which it is now presumed they have had their completion, we find a perfect harmony and consistency between them. Nothing is advanced by one prophet, that is contradicted by another. An unity of design is conspicuous in them all; yet without the least appearance of collusion, since each prophet hath his own peculiar views, and enlarges on facts and circumstances, unnoticed by any other.

Further still, these various and successive prophecies are so intimately blended, and, as we may say, incorporated with each other, that the credit of all depends on the truth of each. For, the accomplishment of them falling in different times, every preceding prophecy becomes surety, as it were, for those that follow; and the failure of any one must bring disgrace and ruin on all the rest.

Then, again, consider that the prophetic spirit, which kept operating so uniformly and perpetually in what is called the former age, ceased at that very time, when the great object, it had in view, was disclosed; when that future œconomy, which it first and last predicted, was introduced: a time, too, which was precisely determined by the old prophets themselves. Could they answer for what design or chance might be able to bring about? Is it credible, that this perennial fount of prophecy, which ran so copiously from Adam to Christ, and watered all the ages of the Jewish church, should stop, at once, in so critical a season; and should never flow again in any future age; if fortune, or fraud, or fanaticism, had dispensed its streams, if any thing indeed, but the hand of God, had opened its source, and directed its current?

Nor let it be objected that a succession of prophets was interrupted for some ages before the coming of Christ. It was so: but not, till preceding prophets had marked out the precise time of his coming[62]; not, till Malachi, with whom the word of prophecy ceased for a time, had foretold that this interrupted series should be resumed and finally closed by Elijah, the last Jewish prophet and precursor of the Messiah[63]; and not, till it had been expressly declared, that this eclipsed light of prophecy should break forth again with redoubled lustre, in the days of the Messiah[64]. Who would not conclude, then, from this very intermission, that prophecy was given, or withheld, as the wisdom of God ordained, and not as the caprice or policy of man directed?

It may not be pretended, that the age, in which prophecy finally ceased among the Jews, will account for the suppression of this faculty, “for that it was an age of the greatest turbulency and disorder, and that their ruin and dispersion soon after followed.” This pretence, I say, is altogether frivolous. For it was precisely in those circumstances, that their ancient prophets were most numerous, and their inspirations most abundant. It was during the calamitous season of their captivities, that the prophetic power had been most signally exercised among the Jews. And now, when they were carried captive into all lands, not a single prophet arose, or hath arisen to this day, either for their reproof, or consolation[65].

If it be said, “that the pagan oracles ceased, too, about the same time; and that the same cause, namely, the diffused light and knowledge of the Augustan age, was fatal to both;” besides, that this diffusion of light, for obvious reasons, was not likely to affect the Jewish prophecies, and did not, as we certainly know, in any degree diminish the credit of them, with that people, the fact itself, assumed in the objection, is plainly false. For the pagan oracles continued for several ages after that of Augustus; they became less frequent, only, as Christianity gained ground; and were not silenced, but among the last struggles of expiring paganism[66]. So that if the Jewish prophecies, like those of the Gentile world, had been the issue of fraud, or fanaticism (principles, that operate at all times, and, with redoubled force and activity, in the dark days of persecution) one does not see, why they might not have continued to this day among the bigoted professors of that religion.

Now, put all these things together, that is, The long duration of the prophetic system—the mutual dependance and close connexion of its several parts—the consistency and uniformity of its views, all terminating in one point—and the final suppression of it (as was likewise foretold) at the very time, when those views were accomplished; consider, I say, all this, and see, if there be not something more than a blind credulity in the advocates for the divinity of such a system. See, if there be any instance upon record—of so numerous prophecies—so long continued—so intimately related to each other and to one common end—so apparently verified—and so signally concluded. If there be, I shall not wonder at the suspense and hesitation of wise men, on this subject: but if, on the other hand, no such thing was ever seen, or heard of, out of the land of Judæa, they must excuse us if we incline to think their diffidence misplaced, and their scruples unnecessary, at least, if not disingenuous.

I descend no farther into a detail on the scriptural prophecies concerning Christ’s first coming. The immensity of the subject, and the plan prescribed to me in this Lecture, equally restrain me from this attempt. Obscurities there may, and must be, in so vast a scheme: Objections may, and must occur to the construction and application of particular prophecies. But let any serious man take the Bible into his hands; let him consider, not all the prophecies in that book, but such as are more obvious and intelligible; and let him compare such prophecies, as he must acknowledge, and may, in part at least, understand, with the facts, in which he sees their completion, or so far, as he may think it probable that they have been completed; and I dare be confident that such an inquirer will be much struck with the amount of the evidence from prophecy, in support of divine revelation. If, indeed, on this general survey, he find nothing to affect him, I shall not desire him to push his researches into the more secret and mysterious prophecies: much less, shall I advise him to wade through that cloud of smaller difficulties, in which the ignorant temerity of some writers, and the obscure diligence of others, hath involved this, as it easily may any other, subject.

To speak plainly, the only consideration, which to me seems likely to perplex fair and candid minds, is this—“That the argument from prophecy is understood to be addressed to those, who admit the divinity of the Jewish scriptures—that the Jews themselves were eminently in this situation—that, besides this advantage, the Jews were better qualified, than any others, to interpret their own prophecies; and to judge of their completion—and yet, that these very men neither were, nor are convinced by this argument.”

Several things are here asserted, which deserve to be explained. I take them in an inverted order.

I. It is said, “that the Jews were not, and are not to this day, convinced by the argument from prophecy.” This allegation is in part false: for multitudes[67], from among the Jews, were, in the apostolic age, converted to Christianity; and these are well known to have laid a peculiar stress on this argument. The greater part of that people, indeed, disbelieved, and have continued to this day in their infidelity. But then let it be considered, 1. that we have an adequate cause of this effect, in the prejudices of the Jewish nation; prejudices, of which their whole history evidently convicts them. 2. That, notwithstanding their rejection of Jesus, they admit the existence and authority of those prophecies, which we apply to him; and that they themselves have constantly applied these very prophecies to their expected Messiah: so that the question between us is only this, Whether they, or we, rightly apply them. 3. That their perverse obstinacy in refusing to submit to the evidence of their prophecies, is itself foretold by their own prophets.

II. But it is further said, “that their authority, in this controversy, is greater than ours, for that they must best understand their own prophecies, and judge best of their completion.”

1. I do not perceive on what ground of reason this is said. The old prophecies belong to us, as well as to them; and have been considered with as much diligence by Christian, as by Jewish expositors. Their customs, their history, their traditions, are equally known to both parties. Their very language hath been studied by Christians with a care, not inferior to that which the Jews themselves employ upon it; with a care, that not unfrequently, in both, hath degenerated into superstition.

If it be said, “that the ancient Jews, that is, the Jews in the time of Christ, must have been better qualified, than we now are, to interpret the prophecies, the language, they spoke, being only a dialect of that in which the prophecies are written,” the answer is already given, under the last article: to which we may further add, that Christianity being much better understood now, than it was then, the force of the prophetic language concerning it (if, indeed, the prophecies have any such thing in view) must be more distinctly apprehended, in many instances, by Christians at this day, than it could be by the Jews, even when they spoke a dialect of the Hebrew language. So that still I do not see, upon the whole, what advantage the Jews, whether of ancient or modern times, can be thought to have over us, in explaining the prophetic scriptures. And then

2. As to the completion of the prophecies, the same histories are in the hands of both: and if they do not apply them, as we do the appeal is open to common sense. Every man is left at liberty to judge for himself, which side is best supported in the application of them. The prejudice might, indeed, be thought equal on both sides, if it were not decided by their own scriptures, that no prejudice of any people upon earth was ever so invincible, as that of the Jews.

3. Lastly, on both heads, there is a peculiar presumption, that they, and not we, are misled by prejudice: It is this: They were led by their prophecies, as interpreted by themselves, to expect that they would be completed at the time, in which, we say, they were completed; and it was not till after the coming of Christ that they began to interpret them differently, and to look out for another completion of them. Judge then, if they, or we, are likely to have erred most, through prejudice, in expounding and applying the prophecies. The natural and proper sense will be thought to be that, in which we take them; for that sense occurred first to themselves, and was, in truth, their sense, before we adopted it.

When I say—their sense—I mean, especially, in respect to the time, which they had fixed for the accomplishment of the prophecies concerning the Messiah: for, as to their giving a temporal sense to some prophecies, in which we find a spiritual, that is another matter, concerning which, as I said, the appeal lies to every competent and dispassionate inquirer. In the mean time, it must be thought some presumption in favour of the Christian interpretation, that, whereas the Jews, in rejecting a spiritual or mystical sense of those prophecies (which yet is admitted by them, without scruple, on other occasions, and is well suited to the genius of their whole religion) are driven to the necessity of supposing a two-fold Messias—a new conceit, taken up, without warrant from their scriptures, and against their own former ideas and expectations—We, on the contrary, by the help of that spiritual sense, are able to explain all the prophecies of one and the same Messias, conformably to the event, and even to the time which the Jews themselves had prefixed for the completion of them.

Now, when, of two interpretations, one has apparently all the marks of shift, constraint, and distress in it, and the other comes out easy, uniform, and consistent; we may guess beforehand, as I said, which of them is likely to be well-founded.

III. Still it is pretended, “that the argument from prophecy is properly addressed to those only who admit the divinity of the Jewish scriptures, as the Jews have invariably done; and that it hath no force, but on that previous supposition. Why then is the argument pressed on others, who do not believe the divine authority of those scriptures? And how should it prevail with any, whether believers or not, when the Jews themselves, who of all men most firmly believe that authority, are not convinced by it?”

The latter part of the difficulty, which respects the incredulity of the Jews, hath been already removed; so far, I mean, as it is founded on their prejudices. As for the assertion, “That the argument from prophecy presupposes the truth and divinity of the Jewish scriptures, and must therefore have most weight with the Jews, or rather hath no weight at all, but with them, or with others, who admit that common principle,” though something, like this, may have been said, I take it to be wholly unsupported, as well by fact, as by any good reason.

1. I argue against this assumption from fact; that is, from the method, taken by the early Christians to convert the Gentile world, and from the success of that method.

If we look into the history of the Gospel, we shall find the Apostle Peter, pressing this argument from prophecy on the gentile Cornelius[68]; and the Apostle Paul, urging it with effect, on the Jews indeed first, but also on the Asiatic Gentiles[69]. If we turn to the Christian apologists, we shall find them addressing this topic to Gentile unbelievers, nay, as venturing the whole cause of Christianity on this single argument[70]. Justin Martyr makes as free use of it in his apology to the Antonines, as in his dialogues with Trypho. We know, too, the success of this argument, thus employed, in many instances: and therefore see, as well the fitness of the argument to produce this effect, as the judgment of the Apostles and primitive Christians concerning its fitness. But to come

2. to the reason of the thing.

The Jews, who professed to believe, and did, in fact, believe, the divine inspiration of their sacred oracles, were, doubtless, bound by their own principles, to expect with assurance the due completion of them. The Gentiles, who did not previously respect those oracles as of divine authority, but regarded them only in the light of human conjectures, yet saw that such passages, whether we call them oracular or conjectural, did, in truth, occur in the Jewish scriptures; and were obliged to admit, on the faith of historical testimony, that those scriptures were composed by the persons whose names they bear, and at the times fixed for the composition of them. What then is the difference of the two cases? Only this: the Jews believed that their oracles would be fulfilled, because they held them to be divine; the Gentiles had to wait till those oracles were fulfilled, before they acknowledged their divinity. In either case, the argument is independent of the belief, or the expectation, and turns on the completion only. Then, indeed, the Jew sees that his belief was well founded, and the Gentile admits that the prediction was divine.

The mistake would be equal, on the other hand, to conceive, that the argument from prophecy pre-supposes the divine inspiration of the New Testament. It pre-supposes only the historical truth of that book. Admit this, and compare the events recorded in that history, with the prophecies to which they correspond, and the divinity of both Testaments is proved. For then, the pretensions of Jesus are made good, by the completion of the prophecies; and the inspiration of the prophets is concluded, from the delivery of them.

In both cases (let me repeat it) it is not the authority of the books containing the prophecies, nor of the books recording the facts in which they are fulfilled, but simply the completion of the prophecies in those facts, seen and acknowledged, which infers the divinity of either Testament. Even the Jew would retract his high opinion of the prophecies, if he did not admit or expect the accomplishment of them; and the Christian would renounce his faith in Jesus, if his history did not accord to the prophecies, alledged.

’Tis true, that, with either, the argument would gain more attention, than with such as professed no previous belief in the divinity of the Old or New Testament. But its force is really the same, on both suppositions. It lies merely in the conviction, which one hath from the evidence produced, that certain prophetic passages were delivered in the Old Testament, and have been fulfilled by certain corresponding events, related in the New.

On the whole, there is no reason to conclude, that we are not as good judges of the argument from prophecy, as the Jews were; or, that this argument ought to have the less weight with us, because the Jews were not convinced by it. For the argument doth in no degree depend on faith, but is calculated to produce it. It is equally strong, or equally weak, to a Christian, or Jew, or even to an unbeliever: the sole point in question being this, Whether such things, as were prophetically delivered, appear to have been fulfilled: a point, on which common sense and common honesty will equally decide, on every supposition.

I know, indeed, that, unless we suppose the inspiration of the prophets, some passages, delivered by them, will not so probably be thought to intend Christ, as they will be, if we acknowledge that principle: and, on the other hand, that there are some circumstances in the history of Jesus, which will not be so readily seen to refer to preceding prophecies, if the inspiration of Jesus and his Apostles be not previously admitted. But I do not argue, at present, from either of these topics. There are passages enough, clearly predictive of the Messiah, and clearly accomplished in him, to afford a solid foundation for the argument from prophecy, as here instituted, without looking out for any other of more nice and ambiguous interpretation.

Hence we see the dangerous mistake of those, who contend that the argument from prophecy hath not, of itself, the nature of a direct positive proof of our religion. Prophecies fulfilled, I mean such prophecies as those in question, prove invincibly the divine inspiration of the prophets. But, if the prophets were inspired, the divine mission of him, in whom the predicted marks of the Messiah meet, must needs be acknowledged. And what more is required to prove the truth of Christianity? Not even the evidence of miracles, performed by Christ, if the prophecies had not made them one mark of his character. The truth is, Prophecies and Miracles are, in themselves, two distinct positive proofs. Either proof is direct, and would have been sufficient, if the other had not been given. But the divine goodness, for our more abundant satisfaction, and to leave infidelity without excuse, hath made the one proof dependent on the other: so that neither the argument from prophecy is complete, without the miracles; nor the argument from miracles, as applied to Christ, unless he likewise appear to have fulfilled the prophecies. Can we desire a stronger proof, that neither they, who predicted the miracles, were false prophets, nor he, who claimed to himself the application of ALL the prophecies, was a false Messiah?

These reflexions, on the method and order of the prophecies, of those especially concerning Christ’s FIRST COMING; together with what has been said on the independency of this argument on Jewish or Christian concessions; may serve to convince us, That we shall do well to suspend our conclusions concerning the evidence of prophecy, till we have examined the whole subject. In the mean time, this part of the subject, thus far opened and explained, leads us, with advantage, to the consideration of that, which is yet behind and is the peculiar object of this Lecture, I mean the prophecies concerning Christ’s second coming.

SERMON VI.
PROPHECIES CONCERNING CHRIST’S SECOND COMING.
Isaiah xlii. 9.

Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth, I tell you of them.

It must strike the most careless reader of the prophecies to observe, that the general subject of them all was announced from the earliest time, and was only drawn out more distinctly by succeeding prophets: that, of the two ages, into which the world of God, I mean his religious world, is divided in holy scripture, the former, which abounds most in prophecy, was plainly made subservient to the latter: that not only the events of that preceding age are foretold by its own prophets, but that the fortunes of the last, and very remote age, are occasionally revealed by them; and that the same oracles, which attest the first coming of Christ, as if impatient to be confined to so narrow bounds, overflow, as it were, into the future age, and expatiate on the principal facts and circumstances of his second coming.

By this divine artifice, if I may so speak, the two dispensations, the Jewish and Christian, are closely tied together, or rather compacted into one intire harmonious system; such, as we might expect, if it were indeed formed, and conducted by him, to whom are known all his works from the beginning[71].

So that, in respect of the fortunes, which were to befall the Christian church, even in the latter days, we may still ask, in the triumphant terms of the Jewish prophet—Have ye not known? Have ye not heard? Hath it not been told you from the beginning? Have ye not understood from the foundation of the earth[72]?

But, though this subject was opened by the old prophets, so far as seemed expedient in that age, and clearly enough, to shew the integrity and continuity of the whole system, it was more illustriously, because more distinctly, displayed by the evangelical prophets.

And here, again, the same provision of wisdom and goodness meets us, as before. The Christian prophets, like the Jewish, bespeak our attention to what they reveal of the greater and more distant events in their dispensation, by other less momentous prophecies, which were speedily to be accomplished[73]; thus, impressing upon us an awful sense of their divine foresight, and procuring an easy credit from us to their subsequent predictions: while the events, which both these prophetic schemes point out, are so distributed through all time, as to furnish, successively, to the several ages of the world, the means of a fresh and still growing conviction[74].

As the order of these Discourses, now, leads me to exemplify this last observation, I shall do it in THREE remarkable prophecies concerning the Christian church; I mean those, which respect 1. The destruction of Jerusalem. 2. The dispersion of the Jews. And 3. The conversion of the Gentiles.

I refer to these prophecies, as well known. They are in the number of those, which, in part, were delivered by the Jewish prophets; and afterwards, more distinctly revealed by the Christian.

I. The destruction of the Jewish city and temple, is an event of the utmost moment in the view of revealed religion. It accomplished a great number of prophecies, and vindicated the honour of Jesus, by a signal vengeance on his murderers. It answered, besides, other important purposes of divine providence; by putting a visible and necessary end to the Jewish œconomy, which was now to give way to the dispensation of the Messiah; and by dispersing the Jews into all lands, for many wise and admirable reasons. Hence, of all the prophecies, delivered by Christ himself (who was a prophet, though indeed much more than a prophet) This alone is displayed by him, at large, and in all its circumstances.

If any man, unacquainted with these matters, should doubt, whether this prophecy of Jesus, as recorded in three of the four Gospels, were not delivered, that is, forged, after the event, I might refer him to the numerous writers on that subject. But I hold it sufficient to say, 1, On the faith of all antiquity, that these Gospels were not only written, but published to the world, before the destruction of Jerusalem—2, that the early date of their composition is apparent from many internal characters, dispersed through these writings—3, that no interpolation of this prophecy could afterwards take place, because the prophecy is interwoven with the general thread of the history—and, 4, lastly, that no unbeliever of the primitive times, whether Jew or Gentile, when pressed, as both frequently were, by this prophecy, appears to have had recourse to the charge, either of forgery, or interpolation[75].

The authenticity and early date of the prophecy is, then, on these grounds, assumed.

I will, further, suppose (because the history of Josephus invincibly proves it) that all the particulars, mentioned in this prophecy, concurred in the event.

“But this, you will say, might well be: for what more uniform, than the characters of distress in a great city, forced and desolated by a superior enemy? And what more probable, than that, some time or other, such should be the fate of every great city?”

It may further be insinuated, “That, if ever Jerusalem was to be destroyed, the obstinate humour of its inhabitants, and the nature of the place, would probably draw this destruction upon it, in the way it actually happened, in the way of siege[76]: that, then, all the miseries, endured by the Jews, would naturally fall on a desperate people from an irritated and successful conqueror; above all, in ancient times, when conquest and clemency were little acquainted with each other: that, as for the preceding wars, famines, pestilences, and earth-quakes (which are mentioned, in the prophecy, as signs of the approaching desolation) these, are such usual things in the course of the world, as may be safely made the prognostics of any predicted event whatsoever: that Jesus, therefore, as any other wise man, might form his prediction on these principles; and trust to time, and the passions of mankind, for the completion of it.”

Now, let all this be allowed (and scepticism itself will hardly make other or greater demands upon us) still, the honour of Jesus stands secure; and this fine fabric of suspicion is overturned at once, if we reflect on two or three circumstances, unluckily, and, if the prophet be not divine, unnecessarily wrought into the texture of this famous prophecy.

First, I observe, that this destruction was to come from the hands of the Romans[77]; and, without doubt, if it were to happen in any reasonable time, it could not so probably be expected to come from any other quarter. But, then, was it likely that Judæa, at that time a Roman province, should be thus isolated by its own masters? Was it to be presumed, that so small a province should dare to engage in a formal contest with Rome, the mistress of the world, as well as of Judæa? with Rome, then the zenith of her power, and irresistible to all nations? Was it conceivable, if any future distraction of that mighty empire should tempt the Jews to oppose their feeble efforts to its high fortune, that a vengeance so signal, so complete, should be taken upon them? that nothing less than a total extermination should be proposed, and effected? The ruin of the temple at Jerusalem was to be so entire, that one stone should not be left upon another. Allow for the exaggerated terms of a prophetic description; still, was it imaginable, that the Romans should, in any proper sense of the words, execute this denunciation? Was it their way, as it was afterwards that of the Goths, to wage war with stones? Was it a principle with them, to beat down the pride of buildings, as well as of men[78]? Would even their policy, or their pride, have suffered them to blot out an ancient, a renowned, an illustrious temple, the chief ornament of their province, the glory of the East, and the trophy of their own conquests?

Such an event was very improbable, in contemplation: and history shews, that it did not come to pass in any ordinary way. For the instrument, in the hands of Heaven, of this exterminating vengeance, was a man, the most unlikely of all others to inflict it; a man, who by nature abhorred such extremities; who, in fact, did his utmost to prevent this dreadful catastrophe, and could not prevent it[79].—Still, a more unmanageable circumstance, than this, occurs in the prophecy. For,

Secondly, it is implied that ONE of our Lord’s disciples should survive this desolation[80]: and it is expressly asserted, that the then subsisting generation should not pass away, before all these things were accomplished[81]. They WERE accomplished, within forty years from the date of the prophecy, and before the death of that disciple. The fact is certain and undeniable: I leave the rest to your own reflexions.

Thirdly, warning is given in this prophecy to the disciples of Jesus, to fly from this impending ruin; and a signal is held out to them, for that purpose[82]. It is further predicted, that they should avail themselves of this signal and so entirely escape the snare, in which the rest of their countrymen should be taken, that not a hair of their heads should perish[83]. And this part of the prophecy was, it seems, completed[84].

Lastly, this prophecy was incumbered with another strange event, needlessly incumbered with it, if the whole were an imposture. It is said, that the Gospel should be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations, before it should be fulfilled. Was it not enough to say, that the prophecy should be accomplished in the time of that generation, and in the life-time of St. John, without adding so unlikely a circumstance, as that a general promulgation of the Gospel, by a few unlettered and unfriended fishermen, should precede the accomplishment of it?—I know, that this part of the prophecy admits a secondary sense: but, in the primary sense, it was so far fulfilled, as to astonish us with the divine foresight of its author.

I omit other considerations, that might be alledged. But you see that, setting aside such particulars in the prophecy, as sceptical men may think themselves able to draw within the sphere of human conjecture, there are several things expressed in it, so strange to all apprehension, so unlikely to happen, so impossible for any natural sagacity to foresee, and yet so certainly and punctually fulfilled, that nothing short of divine inspiration can possibly account for them. The prophecy, in all its parts, is divine: but in these, its divinity is clear and incontestable.

II. The dispersion of the Jews, is another event, which deserves your consideration.

Moses himself had predicted this circumstance of their fortune, in terms of the greatest energy. He had told them—that they should be removed into all the kingdom of the earth, and that they should be scattered among all people from one end of the earth even unto the other—that, among the nations, into which they should be driven, they should find no ease, nor rest, and that they should be only oppressed and crushed alway—that they should become an astonishment, a proverb, and a by-word among all nations—and that their plagues should be wonderful, and of long continuance[85]. These prophecies had been, to a certain degree, fulfilled in other parts of their history: but there was to be a time, when the wrath of God should come upon them to the uttermost[86]. This time was now come, when their city was destroyed, and their land desolated, by the arms of Titus. Then, as Jesus prophesied of them, were the days of vengeance, that all things, which were written, should be fulfilled: then, were they to be led away captive into all nations: and thenceforth, was Jerusalem to be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles should be fulfilled[87].

Nor say, that this last prophecy is indefinite: for the times of the Gentiles is a period, well known in the prophetic writings; a period, of long duration indeed, as the event hath shewn; yet a period, marked out by other prophecies (which may come, in turn, to be considered in this Lecture) no less distinctly, than their other captivities had been.

For, to all these predictions there must be added one more, which expressly asserts the return of this people, in some future age, from their long and wretched dispersion: for blindness, in part, only, hath happened to Israel; and that again, till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in[88]. This, St. Paul terms a mystery: and yet the ancient prophets had a glimpse of it, when they foretold, that the Lord would not make a full end of them[89], and that a remnant of them should remain, and should return in the latter days[90]. Moses himself, who had denounced such heavy judgements upon them, and of so long continuance, during their dispersion, had mingled, with his woes, this one note of mercy—And yet for all that, when they lie in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them UTTERLY, and to break my covenant with them[91].

Consider these predictions, and compare them with the present and past state of this people for seventeen hundred years; and see, if there be nothing to take your attention, or, rather, your astonishment, in the completion of them.

Why is this dreadful vengeance, singular in its circumstances, and never yet experienced by any other people on the face of the earth, why is this peculiar vengeance executed on the Jews?—Or, whatever the cause may be, is not the fact such as was predicted?

“The predictions, you will say, have the appearance of being fulfilled. But where is the wonder, that a people, distinguished by a singular religion, and above measure addicted to it, should continue to exist under that distinction, and should be every where known by it? That a people, on account of their profession, more than commonly obnoxious to the other religious sects, among whom the earth hath been chiefly parcelled out—to the Heathen, for their unconquerable aversion to idolatry—to the Christians, for the atrocious murder of their founder—to the Mahometans, for the constant rejection of their prophet—should be the scorn and outcast of all three; and that, being excluded from the only country, to which they have any attachment, they should be vagabonds on the earth, and should disperse themselves indifferently through every quarter of it, as caprice, or interest, or convenience, invites them? that, lastly, being thus distinguished from all men, and thus at enmity with all, they should never be suffered to enter into any other civil community, or to establish a distinct community of their own?”

But the wonder doth not lie, altogether, where these questions seem to place it. That the Jews, while they profess themselves such, should be thus treated, may be natural enough: but that they should continue, for so many ages, under such treatment; every where and always spurned, reviled, oppressed; yet neither worn out by this usage; nor induced by it to renounce their offensive profession, and take refuge in the mass of people among whom they live; that neither time, nor custom, nor suffering, should get the better of their bigotry or patience; but that they should still subsist a numerous, a distinct, a wretched people, as they do, to this day—all this hath something prodigious in it, which the common principles of human nature will not easily explain[92].

We, who admit the divine origin of their religion; and, adore, with them, the extraordinary providence, by which their polity was so long administered and upheld; can, better than any others, explain this difficulty. For, what so likely to produce an invincible attachment to their Law, as the abundant evidence, they had of its authority? But neither will this account of the matter be found satisfactory. For, as if on purpose to discredit this solution, their history informs us, That ten, of the twelve tribes, which originally composed their nation, did, in fact, disappear under their last captivity, and were, in a good measure at least, absorbed in it. If such, then, was the fate of Israel in its dispersion, within the compass of not many generations, and yet the relics of Judah are still preserved in all countries to this day, what better or other reason can we assign for this difference of fortune in two branches of the same people, equally attached to the same divine Law, than that the former were left to the natural consequences of a dispersion, and that the latter were purposely kept from being affected by them, as the prophecies had distinctly foretold?

If it be still said, “That there is nothing more extraordinary in this continuance of the Jews, under their dispersion, than of other religionists in like circumstances; of the Christians for instance, under the Turkish dominion;” the cases (to say nothing of the difference in point of time) are, in many respects, entirely unlike.

The Asiatic Christians derive a confidence, and some degree of protection, from the many flourishing Christian empires, which subsist in other quarters of the world.

They, can perform all the duties of their religion, as perfectly in the countries, where they reside, as in any other.

They, have the future hopes of the Gospel, the proper sanction of their Law, to support them in all the distresses, to which their Christian profession may, at present, expose them. What is it to them, as St. Austin well observed in a like case, that they suffer for a season in a strange land; when even in their own, that is, a Christian country, they are still obliged, by the principles of their religion, to consider themselves, as strangers and pilgrims on the earth[93]?

The condition of the Jews, on the other hand, is widely different. They, profess a religion, founded on temporal promises, only: and how miserably these have failed them, the experience of many ages hath now shewn.

The Jews, are shut out from the only country in the world, where the several rites and ordinances of their religion can be regularly and lawfully observed.

The Jews, have, besides, the sensible mortification of knowing, that all their brethren of the dispersion are every where in equal distress with themselves; and that there is not one Jewish state or sovereignty subsisting on the face of the whole earth.

It follows, that in the Jews, we find nothing but their destiny, so plainly read to them by their own prophets, as well as ours, to account for their long continuance in their present dispersion: whereas, the Asiatic Christians have many resources of comfort within themselves; and may subsist, in Mahometan countries, on the same general motives and inducements, which sustain the courage of other unhappy men.

Yet, notwithstanding the advantages, here pointed out, on the side of the Asiatic Christians, the fact is, that they are reduced to a very small number, and are insensibly melting away under the oppressions of their Ottoman masters; so that in no long time, if that enormous tyranny should be permitted to continue, they may, not improbably, quite vanish out of those countries, where they had formerly so many and flourishing churches: whereas, the Jews continue every where to abound in great numbers; they thrive under their oppressions; and seem to multiply amidst their distresses; as if the order of things were reversed in regard to them, and the same causes operated to the conservation of this people, which tend so naturally to the waste and destruction of every other.

Still, I have another reflexion, or two, to make on this interesting subject.

1. It deserves to be considered, that the natives of any country, though subdued and enslaved by a foreign nation, may, indeed, subsist very long under that distinction. Thus, the Gentoo Indians have preserved their name and race, under their Mahometan invaders: and thus, the Moors, if they had not been violently expelled, might have continued a distinct people for many ages, in their old Spanish quarters. But that small colonies of men, transported into strange and populous nations, should preserve a distinct existence, and not insensibly moulder away, and mix themselves with their numerous native masters; This, I think, is without example in the history of mankind. If the Jews might be expected to abound any where, it should, methinks, be in Judæa; where the sight of the holy land, and the memory of their past fortunes, might invigorate their prejudices, and perpetuate their attachment to the Jewish name and worship. But it so happens, that the number of Jews in that country hath now for many ages been inconsiderable, while they swarm in every other.

2. It should, further, I think, be observed, that a sect, whether you will call it of religion, or philosophy, may subsist through a long tract of ages; I mean, that certain opinions may continue to be professed by some people, or other, without intermission; as may be true of the doctrine concerning the two principles, at all times so prevalent in the East; of that species of eastern idolatry, which consists in the worship of fire; and in other instances. But that these opinions, in circumstances any thing like those of the Jews, should still be professed, not only by some, but by the same men, that is, by men known to be of the same extraction, as well as of a certain persuasion; this, again, is, I think, a circumstance of great singularity, and altogether unprecedented in the case of any other people. Who knows, of what race or family the present Manichees are descended, or the professors of the old Persian idolatry? The followers of the Mosaic law, are every where known to be of the stock of Abraham. They are distinguished in all places, as being Jews by descent, as well as by Religion.

3. Supposing, what I think cannot be shewn, that the history of the world furnishes an instance or two of a people circumstanced in all respects, as the Jews are; these extraordinary cases would not much abate the wonder, we are now contemplating. For how happened it, that a prophecy delivered above three thousand years ago concerning the fate of a particular people, should be so exactly verified, as it has hitherto been, when that fate is so far from being a common one, that it has only taken place, in one or two instances besides, within the compass of so many ages? And still more, how should it enter into the head of Moses to deliver this prophecy, when, at the time of his delivering it, he had absolutely no instance before his eyes of such fate, in the case of any people?

These things, then, deserve to be well and seriously considered.

Lastly, We believe, on the faith of the sacred oracles, that the Jews shall never be destroyed utterly, but shall exist a distinct people, as they have hitherto done, till the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. But here, you will say, the prophets indulged a natural prejudice in favour of their own nation; it being the way of all people to delight in such dreams of existence and perpetuity. It may be so: But see, whether this dream hath ever yet been so far realized, in the case of any other people. The Romans, for instance, were as partial to themselves, and doted as much on the idea of their perpetuity, as the Jews. But what now is become of their eternal empire? Consider, therefore, the singular fate of the Jews through so many ages, and see whether it be not credible from what is past, that the prophet was moved by something more than a spirit of national vanity, when he said, Fear thou not, O Jacob my servant, saith the Lord, for I am with thee; for I will make a full end of all the nations whither I have driven thee, but I will not make a full end of thee[94].

To these prophecies concerning Jerusalem, and the Jews, I add

III. A third, concerning the call and conversion of the Gentiles to Christianity.