and circumstantial_ prophecies, to _any_ person, indifferently, whom
they might suit, and to _any_ events indiscriminately, to which they
might correspond, sought out at large in the history of mankind, the
force of the argument for _design_ in such prophecies, might in good
measure be eluded. But, when we reflect on what, in part, hath appeared
under the last article, that all the scriptural predictions profess to
respect one certain scheme of things; run in the line of one people;
and point ultimately at one person, whose country, and family, and age,
and birth-place are exactly defined; the application of them is so
limited and restrained, that, if they suit at all, there is scarce a
possibility of excluding actual foresight, and intention.
LET ME, further, observe, that, as, upon this idea of a confined,
connected, and dependent scheme, in the prophecies, the detection of
imposture, if there be any, is much facilitated; so, on the other hand,
if the prophecies can be fairly applied in this way, not only the
presumption, that they were given to be so applied, is much increased,
but a clearer insight into the scope and meaning of them, is obtained.
For, in a system of prophecy, directed to one and the same general
end, preceding prophecies prepare the way for interpreting those that
follow, and every succeeding prophecy reflects some light on those that
went before. Thus, the general evidence, arising from this species of
argument, is, in all ways, augmented; while we see, that less room is
left to chance in verifying the more clear and direct prophecies, and
that fresh light is let in upon such as are more ambiguous or obscure.
It is said, that many passages in the prophets are applied to Jesus, on
very slight grounds. This would be true, if the prophetic scriptures,
like the pagan oracles, had no determinate scheme in view, and had,
for their object, only detached and unconnected events. But, on this
scriptural principle, that one common purpose is in the contemplation
of that divine spirit, which dictated all those writings, That is
_expressed_, which is barely intimated; and every applicable prophecy
is _rightly_ applied: whence it is, that even secondary prophecies
have, in the system of revelation, all the light and force of the
primary; as, in a former discourse, hath been observed.
This assertion, I know, may startle such persons, as have not attended
to the genius of the prophetic writings, or to that general harmony of
design and destination, which makes their distinctive character: but it
may be rendered familiar to us by reflecting on the _manner_, in which
we interpret other writings, somewhat similar to these.
It is generally supposed, and on good grounds, that Virgil wrote his
Æneid with the view of doing honour to the person and government of
Augustus. But, the subject of his work being taken from a former age,
this was either to be done, by introducing his encomiums under the
form of _prophecies_, or by conveying them indirectly in allusive
descriptions and, what we call, _secondary_ applications. The poet
hath employed both these methods, with success. The purpose of his
_predictions_ is clear; for in them the emperor is expressly named: and
the ablest critics make no scruple of applying to Augustus all those
passages in this poem, which, however they may respect, immediately,
other persons, are yet clearly seen to be _applicable_ to Him.
We have another instance of the same sort, at home. Our Spenser
wrote his famous poem, to illustrate the virtues and reign of Queen
Elizabeth. This we know from himself. Though his scene, therefore,
be laid in _Faery Land_, yet, whenever we find his fictions agreeing
to the history of that princess, or the characters of his knights
expressive of those virtues, which distinguished the great persons of
her court, we make no doubt of applying them in that way, or of the
poet’s intending that they should be so applied. These applications
would not be equally justifiable in _other_ works of fancy, written in
that time; but the knowledge, we have of the author’s general purpose
in writing, makes them reasonable in _this_.
It may appear from these examples[55], that, whenever a general
scheme is known to be pursued by a writer, whose real or assumed
character gives him a right to deal in secondary senses and prophetic
anticipations, that scheme becomes the true key, in the hands of his
reader, for unlocking the meaning of particular parts; of many parts,
which would otherwise not be seen clearly and distinctly to refer to
such scheme. The observation applies to the inspired writers, in all
its force. We understand, that they had one common and predominant
scheme in view, which was _to bear testimony to Jesus_. Their writings
are, then, to be interpreted in conformity to that scheme. Not only the
more direct prophecies require this interpretation; but, if we will
judge in this, as we do in other similar instances, whatever passages
occur in those writings, which bear an apt and easy resemblance to
the history of Jesus, may, or rather _must_, in all reasonable
construction, be applied to him.
Whence we see (to mention it by the way) that, if no prophecy in the
Old Testament had applied to Christ directly in its _primary_ sense,
Christianity might, yet, support itself on the evidence of prophecy.
For the evidence, arising from a _secondary_ sense of prophecies, is
_real_ evidence; and was certainly admitted, as such, by that great
man[56], whose mistakes on this subject have afforded the occasion of
so much vain triumph to infidelity.
Fancy, no doubt, may grow wanton in this sort of applications. It may
find, in the prophet or poet, what was never designed by either: but,
in the circumstances supposed, the severest reader will not deny, that
_much_ was probably designed by both. It is impossible to lay down
general rules, that shall prevent all abuse in the interpretation of
such writings. But good sense will easily see, in particular cases,
where this liberty of interpreting is, in _fact_, abused.
It is obvious to remark, that this use of prophecy doth not commence,
till the corresponding facts can be produced; that is, till the
prophecies are seen to be fulfilled. But this circumstance is no
discredit to the prophetic system; which pretends not to give immediate
conviction, but to lay in, beforehand, the _means_ of conviction
to such as shall be in a condition to compare, in due time, the
prediction with the event. Till then, prophecy serves only to raise
a general expectation of the event predicted; that is, it serves to
make men attentive and inquisitive, and to prepare them for that full
conviction, which it finally hath in view. And this service, the
prophecies of the Old Testament actually did the Jews, who were led by
them to expect the Messiah, when he, in fact, appeared among them. And,
had they pursued this reasonable method of interpreting the prophecies,
not by their prejudices, but by corresponding events, they must have
been further led to acknowledge his mission, as being evidently
attested by predictions, so fulfilled. But their capital mistake lay in
supposing, that their prophecies were sufficiently clear, without the
help of any comment from succeeding events; and thus, what they _could
not_ see beforehand, they _would not_ acknowledge, when these events
came to pass.
It follows from what hath been said, that the obscurity of the Jewish
prophecies concludes nothing against the _use_ of those writings, or
against the _application_ of them, which Christians now make. Their
_declared_ use is posterior to the facts they adumbrate; whence the
intervening obscurity of those writings is no just ground of complaint:
and the _application_ of them to Jesus, now that history hath taught us
to understand them better, is made on principles to which no sober man
can object.
On the whole, the general evidence for the truth of Christianity, as
resulting from the scriptural prophecies, though possibly not _that_
which some may wish or expect, is yet apparently very considerable.
_Some_ coincidencies might fall out, by accident; and _more_, might
be imagined. But when _so many_, and _such_ prophecies are brought
together, and compared with their corresponding events, it becomes
ridiculous (because the effect is, in no degree, proportioned to the
cause) to say of such coincidencies, that they are the creatures of
_fancy_ or could have been the work of _chance_.
The text supplies the only just account of such a phænomenon: and the
spirit of God, methinks, calls aloud to us, in the language of his
Son—_These things have I told you before they come, that when they
come to pass, ye may believe, that I am HE._
SERMON V.
PROPHECIES CONCERNING CHRIST’S FIRST COMING.
ISAIAH xlii. 9.
_Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I
declare: before they spring forth, I tell you of them._
The preceding discourses were designed, to open the _general idea_ of
prophecy; and to enforce the _general argument_ from it, in proof of
our holy Religion.
The way being thus far cleared, we now advance a step farther, and take
a nearer view of THE PROPHECIES THEMSELVES.
These prophecies may be considered under _two_ heads. They either
respect, _the person and character and office of the Messiah_; or, _the
fate and fortunes of that kingdom_, which he came to establish in the
world.
Divines call the _former_ of these, Prophecies of his FIRST COMING:
and the _other_, Prophecies of his SECOND. Only, it may be proper to
observe, That the _second_ advent of the Messiah is not, like the
_first_, confined to one single and precise period, but is gradual and
successive. This distinction is founded in the reason of the thing. He
could only come, _in person_, at one limited time. He comes, _in his
power and his providence_, through all ages of the church. His _first_
coming was then over, when he expired on the cross. His _second_,
commenced with his resurrection, and will continue to the end of the
world. So that this _last_ coming of Jesus is to be understood of his
_spiritual kingdom_; which is not one act of sovereignty, exerted at
once; but a state or constitution of government, subsisting through a
long tract of time, unfolding itself by just degrees, and _coming_,
as oft, as the conductor of it thinks fit to interpose by any signal
acts of his administration. And in this sense, we are directed to pray,
_that his kingdom_, though long since set up, _may come_; that is, may
advance through all its stages, till it arrive at that full state of
glory, in which it shall shine out in _the great day_, as it is called,
the day of judgment.
It will be seen, as we advance in the present inquiry, to what use this
distinction serves.
The _former_ set of prophecies are presumed to have had their
completion, in the history of _Jesus_; The _latter_ set, have had, or
are to find, their accomplishment, in the history of his _Religion_;
And of THESE only, it is the purpose of this Lecture to speak.
But, though the prophecies of Christ’s _first_ coming (so largely and
accurately considered by many great writers) be not the immediate
subject of our inquiry, yet they must not be wholly overlooked by us.
It will contribute very much to rectify and enlarge our ideas of the
divine conduct, in this whole dispensation of prophecy, and to make way
for that conviction, which the prophecies of Christ’s _second_ coming
were intended to give, if we stop a while to contemplate the _method
and œconomy_ of that prophetic system, by which the _first_ advent of
the Messiah was announced and prepared.
It is assumed, as a first principle on this subject, _That Jesus was
the ultimate end and object of all the prophecies_[57]: which beginning
from the foundation of the world[58], were, afterwards, occasionally
delivered through many ages; till at length this great purpose was
prosecuted more intently, by a continued and closely-compacted chain of
prophecy; as we see, first, in the patriarchal history, but, chiefly,
in the history of the Jewish state. For, when this people were selected
from the other nations, to answer many wise ends of providence, it
pleased God to institute a form of government for them, which could not
subsist without his frequent interposition; manifested in such a way
as might convince them, that they were under the actual and immediate
conduct of their divine sovereign. Hence, it became a part of this
singular œconomy, to be administered in the way of _Prophecy_; by which
it would be seen that the hand of God was upon them in all their more
important concerns.
Upon this basis of an _extraordinary providence_, the Jewish government
stood: and we are now to see in what _manner_ the prophetic spirit, so
essential to that polity, was employed.
1. First, we may observe, that, by means of this provision for their
civil regimen, an apt and commodious way was opened for carrying on
the divine councils, in regard to _Jesus_; in whom, indeed, the Law
itself was to be fulfilled. For, while the civil affairs of the Jewish
people furnished the occasion and substance of their prophecies, the
divine wisdom, that inspired the prophets, so contrived, as that their
religious concerns should, also, be expressed, or implied in them.
The general theme of the _prophet_, was some, temporal success or
calamity of the Jewish state: the secret purpose of the _inspirer_ was,
occasionally at least, and when he saw fit, to predict the spiritual
kingdom of the Messiah[59].
We have innumerable instances of this sort in the Jewish prophets;
but few, more remarkable than that of Isaiah’s prophecy, addressed to
Ahaz, king of Judah, concerning his deliverance from the two kings
of Samaria and Damascus. In the _primary_, but lower sense of this
prophecy, the sign given was to assure Ahaz, that the land of Judæa
should _speedily_ be delivered from its two Royal invaders. But it had
likewise _another_, and more important purpose. The introduction of the
prophecy, the singular stress laid upon it, and the exact sense of the
terms in which it is expressed, make it probable, in a high degree,
that it had some such purpose: and the event hath clearly proved, that
the _sign given_ had a respect to the miraculous birth of Christ, and
to a deliverance much more momentous than that of Ahaz from his present
distressful situation—_Hear ye now_, O HOUSE OF DAVID—_The Lord
himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and
bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel_. _Isaiah_, vii. 13, 14.
Admit that these words are capable of being explained, in some sort,
of the _child_ now given to be a sign, to the King of Judæa, of his
deliverance within two or three years, as expressed in the following
verses; still, who sees not that terms so emphatical and energetic
are more _properly_ understood of _another_ child, to whose birth and
character they are found, in the event, to be exactly suited? And, if
more properly, who can doubt that these terms are _naturally_, that is,
reasonably understood of that other child, when we consider with what
ideas the mind of the prophet was stored, and what the ultimate end and
object was, by supposition, of the prophet’s inspiration? The child
promised was a _sign_ to Ahaz of his deliverance; yet a sign too, that
is, a _type_, to the house of David, of another deliverance, which they
expected, which their prophets had frequently foretold, and which we
have here announced in the _name_ of this miraculous child, IMMANUEL,
or eminently, _The Deliverer_.
There is nothing in this _sign_[60], thus interpreted, but what is easy
and unforced; I mean, if we bear in mind the genius and character of
the Jewish prophecies. The former event, signified in the prophecy,
was merely _civil_: the latter, concerned the _spiritual_ kingdom of
Christ. They were both predicted together: and the preceding event,
when it came to pass, was, further, to induce an _expectation_, that
the other event would, in due time, follow. For
2. Secondly, it appears, that, to excite attention to these SPIRITUAL
predictions, more obscure than the other, and regarding events more
remote, care was taken to secure the authority of the prophet, by the
completion of his _civil_ predictions in events, distinctly described,
and near at hand. Thus, Moses might be believed by the Jews in what
he said, _of a prophet to be raised up_, in a future age, _like to
himself_; when they saw his prophetic blessings and curses upon them,
according to their deserts in the land of Canaan, so speedily and so
punctually executed. Thus, too, their prophet, Isaiah, might reasonably
expect to find credit with them, for the glorious things predicted
by him of the great deliverer, the Messiah; when their deliverance
from the Babylonish captivity was seen so certainly to verify his
prediction of that event. The prophet himself exults in this argument,
as decisive and unanswerable. _Behold_, says he, in the text, _the
former things are come to pass_, i. e. the prophecies, I have delivered
to you concerning your redemption from the Assyrian bondage, will
soon be so exactly completed, that I regard them as things _past;
and therefore new things do I declare_; hence I claim your belief of
other prophecies, concerning a much greater redemption, to take place
hereafter, though there be no appearance, as yet, of any causes tending
to produce it, _for before they spring forth, I tell you of them_. And
this appears to be the general method of _all_ God’s prophets.
3. With these _new things_, these Spiritual prophecies concerning
the _first_ coming of the Messiah, were likewise intermixed other
prophecies, which ran out beyond that term, and prefigured the great
events of his SECOND coming: and the warrant for admitting _these_,
would be the completion of those other prophecies, in the person and
sufferings of Christ[61]. That there are such prophecies in the Old
Testament, will be shewn hereafter. In the mean time, it will not be
thought incredible, that, if Jesus be indeed the end of the prophetic
scheme, the revolutions of his _government_ should be foretold, as well
as the circumstances of his personal appearance; in other words, that
the consummation of that design, which Providence was carrying on,
would not be overlooked, when the steps and gradations of it were so
distinctly noted. For, in any reasonable design whatsoever, the _end_
is first and principally in view, though the _means_ engage, and may
seem to engross, the attention of its author. It will then, I say,
be no surprise to us to find, that prophecy set out with announcing
the kingdom of the Messiah; that it never lost sight of that future
œconomy; and only produced it into clearer view, as the season
approached for the introduction of it.
THUS MUCH concerning the _order and method_ of the Jewish prophecies;
in which one cannot but adore the profound wisdom of their author. The
_civil_ prophecies are, at once, the vehicle, and the credentials, of
the _spiritual_, concerning the _first_ coming of Jesus; and these
last, in their turn, support the credit of others, which point still
further at his _second_ coming: a subject, more than intimated by the
_legal_ prophets, but resumed and amply displayed by the _evangelical_.
Whence we see, that the prophetic system is so constructed, as, in the
progress and various evolutions of it, to illustrate itself, and to
afford an internal evidence of its divinity. One great purpose pervades
the whole: and the parts, of which it consists, gradually prepare and
mutually sustain each other.
But this subject, so curious and important, is not yet to be dismissed.
It remains to be considered, whether _chance_, or _imposture_, can in
any degree account for so extensive, so connected, and so intricate a
system.
On the very face of the prophetic scriptures it appears, that one
ultimate purpose is in the contemplation of all the prophets. This
purpose is unfolded by successive predictions, delivered in distant
times, under different circumstances, and by persons, who cannot
be suspected of acting in concert with each other. It does not
appear, that the later prophets always understood the drift of the
more ancient; or, that either of them clearly apprehended the whole
scope and purpose of their own predictions. Yet, on comparing all
their numerous prophecies with each other, and with the events, in
which it is now presumed they have had their completion, we find a
perfect harmony and consistency between them. Nothing is advanced
by one prophet, that is contradicted by another. An unity of design
is conspicuous in them all; yet without the least appearance of
_collusion_, since _each_ prophet hath his own peculiar views, and
enlarges on facts and circumstances, unnoticed by any other.
Further still, these various and successive prophecies are so
intimately blended, and, as we may say, incorporated with each
other, that the credit of all depends on the truth of each. For, the
accomplishment of them falling in different times, every preceding
prophecy becomes surety, as it were, for those that follow; and the
failure of any one must bring disgrace and ruin on all the rest.
Then, again, consider that the prophetic spirit, which kept operating
so uniformly and perpetually in what is called the _former age_,
ceased at that very time, when the great object, it had in view, was
disclosed; when that future œconomy, which it first and last predicted,
was introduced: a _time_, too, which was precisely determined by
the old prophets themselves. Could they answer for what _design_ or
_chance_ might be able to bring about? Is it credible, that this
perennial fount of prophecy, which ran so copiously from Adam to
Christ, and watered all the ages of the Jewish church, should stop,
at once, in so critical a season; and should never flow again in any
future age; if fortune, or fraud, or fanaticism, had dispensed its
streams, if any thing indeed, but the hand of God, had opened its
source, and directed its current?
Nor let it be objected that a succession of prophets was _interrupted_
for some ages before the coming of Christ. It was so: but not,
till preceding prophets had marked out the precise _time_ of his
coming[62]; not, till Malachi, with whom the word of prophecy ceased
for a time, had foretold that this interrupted series should be resumed
and finally closed by Elijah, the last Jewish prophet and _precursor_
of the Messiah[63]; and not, till it had been expressly declared, that
this eclipsed light of prophecy should break forth again with redoubled
lustre, in the _days_ of the Messiah[64]. Who would not conclude, then,
from this very intermission, that prophecy was given, or withheld, as
the wisdom of God ordained, and not as the caprice or policy of man
directed?
It may not be pretended, that the age, in which prophecy finally ceased
among the Jews, will account for the suppression of this faculty, “for
that it was an age of the greatest turbulency and disorder, and that
their ruin and dispersion soon after followed.” This pretence, I say,
is altogether frivolous. For it was precisely in those circumstances,
that their ancient prophets were most numerous, and their inspirations
most abundant. It was during the calamitous season of their
captivities, that the prophetic power had been most signally exercised
among the Jews. And now, when they were carried captive into all lands,
not a single prophet arose, or hath arisen to this day, either for
their reproof, or consolation[65].