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.