Part 6

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?”