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?”
It may further be insinuated, “That, if ever Jerusalem was to be
destroyed, the obstinate humour of its inhabitants, and the _nature
of the place_, would probably draw this destruction upon it, in the
way it actually happened, in the way of _siege_[76]: that, then, all
the miseries, endured by the Jews, would naturally fall on a desperate
people from an irritated and successful conqueror; above all, in
ancient times, when conquest and clemency were little acquainted with
each other: that, as for the preceding _wars, famines, pestilences, and
earth-quakes_ (which are mentioned, in the prophecy, as _signs_ of the
approaching desolation) _these_, are such usual things in the course of
the world, as may be safely made the prognostics of any predicted event
whatsoever: that Jesus, therefore, as any other wise man, might form
his prediction on these principles; and trust to time, and the passions
of mankind, for the completion of it.”
Now, let all this be allowed (and scepticism itself will hardly make
other or greater demands upon us) still, the honour of Jesus stands
secure; and this fine fabric of suspicion is overturned at once, if we
reflect on _two or three_ circumstances, unluckily, and, if the prophet
be not divine, unnecessarily wrought into the texture of this famous
prophecy.