Part 4

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,