Part 5

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?