Chancellor Hardwicke. He had been, for many years, in the first
reputation at the Bar; and having passed through the offices of
Sollicitor and Attorney General, was, himself, made Lord Chancellor
in January 1770, but died soon after his appointment to that high
dignity—_Luctuosum hoc suis; acerbum patriæ; grave bonis omnibus_.
[2] The Society _have_ given leave that this Lecture be preached in
their Chapel, and on the days specified.
[3] Thus Celsus represents the Jews—μηδὲν πώποτε ἀξιόλογον πράξαντας,
οὔτ’ ἐν λόγῳ, οὔτ’ ἐν ἀριθμῷ αὐτούς ποτε γεγενημένους. ORIG. contra
CELS. _l._ iv. _p._ 181. _ed. Spenc. Cantab. 1677_. And in _p._ 175,
he represents it as the highest absurdity in such _reptiles_ to
pretend that their insignificant concerns were the objects of divine
prediction, and that the supreme Governor of the world, who had so many
greater things upon his hands, should be only solicitous, as it were,
to keep up a perpetual intercourse with them. See the whole passage,
which the philosopher seems to have taken a pleasure to work up with
much oratorical amplification.—Julian, too, was much pleased with this
foolish objection.
[4] _Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as
the dust of the balance._ Isaiah xl. 15.
[5] Si dii sint, est divinatio.
[6] Si divinatio sit, dii sunt.
[7] These objections were long since urged by Celsus, who speaks
of the Jewish and Christian oracles, as _fanatical, uncertain, and
obscure_, _l._ vii. _p._ 338—ἄγνωστα, καὶ πάροιϛρα, καὶ πάντῃ ἄδηλα,
ὧν τὸ μὲν γνῶμα οὐδεὶς ἂν ἔχων νοῦν εὑρεῖν δύναιτο, ἀσαφῆ γὰρ καὶ τὸ
μηδέν. as _applicable to other subjects besides those to which they
were referred_—τὰς εἰς τὰ περὶ τούτου ἀναφερομένας προφητείας δύνασθαι
καὶ ἄλλοις ἐφαρμόζειν πράγμασι. _l._ i. _p._ 39.—nay, _as much more
applicable to others, than to Jesus_—μυρίοις ἄλλοις ἐφαρμοσθῆναι
δύνασθαι πολὺ πιθανώτερον τὰ προφητικὰ ἢ τῷ Ἰησοῦ. _l._ ii. _p._ 78.
[8] Utrum tandem, per deos atque homines, magis verisimile est,
_vesanum remigem_, aut aliquem nostrûm, qui ibi tum eramus, _me,
Catonem, Varronem, Coponium_ ipsum, concilia deorum immortalium
perspicere potuisse? _Cic. Div._ l. ii. c. 55.
[9] Illud etiam requiro, cur, si deus ista visa nobis providendi causâ
dat, non _vigilantibus_ potius dat quàm _dormientibus_? l. ii. c. 61.
[10] Jam verò quid opus est _circuitione et amfractu_, ut sit utendum
interpretibus somniorum, potiùs quàm _directo_? _Ibid._
[11]
Οὐκ οἶδ’. ἐφ’ οἷς γὰρ μὴ φρονῶ, σιλᾷν φιλῶ.
Soph. Oedip. Tyran. ver. 577.
[12] Quod est enim criminis genus, aut rei esse alicujus ignarum, aut
ipsum, quod nescias, sine aliquâ profiteri dissimulatione nescire? aut
uter magis videtur irrisione esse dignissimus vobis, qui sibi scientiam
nullam tenebrosæ rei alicujus assumit, an ille, qui retur se ex se
apertissimè scire id, quod humanam transiliat notionem, et quod sit
cæcis obscuritatibus involutum?
_Arnobius_, _adv. Gen._ l. ii.
[13] 1 Cor. ii. 11.
[14] St. Matthew, vi. 22.
[15] Μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰησοῦ—_the testimony of, or concerning Jesus_,
not—_the testimony given by Jesus_.
The _former_ appears to be the sense, for the following reasons.
1. The point asserted, is, “That the Angel, who had delivered this
illustrious prophecy, was _the fellow-servant of John_, and not of
John only, but _of those who have the testimony of Jesus_.” The proof
is—_for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus_—i. e. the
end of prophecy is to bear testimony, or, to do honour, to Jesus;
therefore, I, says the Angel, who am endowed with this prophetic
spirit, am but employed, as thou art; who, in thy character of Apostle
or Evangelist, hast received the same general commission, namely, to
bear testimony, or to do honour, to Jesus. See Acts x. 42. We are,
therefore, _fellow-servants_, or joint labourers in the same cause.
All this is clear and well-reasoned. But, now, take the words—_the
testimony of Jesus_—in the sense of—_the testimony given by
Jesus_—and how does the Angel’s having _the spirit of prophecy_, prove
him to be _a fellow-servant of John_? for the reason assigned will then
stand thus—_for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony which Jesus
gives of himself_. The inference is, that the Angel was a true prophet.
Again: how is the Angel proved, in this way, to be _the fellow-servant
of those who have the testimony of Jesus_? Why, thus; the Angel had the
spirit of prophecy, and prophecy was the gift of Christ; therefore he
was the fellow-servant of those, who had the same gift, i. e. who were
prophets. Without doubt. But why so strange a way of proving so plain
a point? It had been enough to say—_I am a prophet, as others are_.
Still, what was this to St. John? who, in this place, is not sustaining
the character of a prophet; for the worship he was inclined to pay the
Angel was on account of the Angel’s being, what himself was not, _a
prophet_.
Turn it which way you will, the reasoning is frivolous, or
inconsequent. I conclude therefore, that not _this_, but the _other_
interpretation gives the true sense of—_the testimony of Jesus_.
2. To speak of _prophecy_ under the idea of _a testimony to, or
concerning Jesus_, is conforming to the true scriptural idea of that
gift. Thus we are told that—_to him_ [i. e. to Jesus] _give all the
prophets witness_—τούτῳ πάντες προφῆται μαρτυροῦσιν, Acts x. 43.
_Prophecy_, therefore, being the thing here spoken of, is rightly
called the testimony, or witness to, or concerning Jesus.
3. Lastly, the construction is fully justified, 1. by observing that
the genitive case [as here Ἰησοῦ] is frequently used in scripture,
not actively, but passively. See a variety of instances in Mede, p.
626, where he explains διδασκαλίαι δαιμονίων: And 2. by referring the
reader to the following passage of St. Paul, where the very expression
of the text is so used—μὴ οὖν ἐπαισχυνθῇς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Κυρίου
ἡμῶν—clearly, _be not ashamed of bearing testimony to our Lord_, 2
Tim. i. 8.—and to Rev. i. 9. where the Apostle tells us, he was in
the isle of Patmos—διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν
Ἰησοῦ Χριϛοῦ—_on account of his having been faithful in preaching
the word of God, and in bearing testimony to Jesus Christ_—and still
more plainly, if possible, and indubitably, by referring him to Rev.
xii. 17. where, speaking of the Dragon, he says, he went in wrath
to make war on those, _which keep the commandments of God, and have
the testimony of Jesus Christ_—τῶν τηρούντων τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ Θεοῦ,
καὶ ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριϛοῦ: for these objects of the
Dragon’s fury are properly, THE WITNESSES, those faithful servants of
truth, who suffered for the courageous and persevering _testimony_,
they gave, in evil times, to Jesus Christ, and to his pure religion.
On the whole, there cannot be the least doubt of the interpretation
here given of this famous text. The _expression_ fairly admits this
interpretation; and (what the true critic will regard most) the _scope_
of the place, or pertinence of the reasoning, addressed to St. John,
admits no other.
[16] John v. 39.
[17] Luke xxiv. 27.
[18] Acts iii. 18.
[19] Acts iii. 24. See also Acts x. 43. 1 Pet. i. 10.
[20] See especially the Epistles to the _Hebrews_, and _Galatians_.
[21] Acts xxvi. 22. See farther, Acts xxviii. 23. Rom. iii. 21. Eph.
ii. 19, &c.
[22] Rev. x. 7.
[23] DR. MIDDLETON’S _Works_, vol. III. p. 137. London, 1752, 4to.
[24] Though by _Moses_, is here meant, not the prophecies of Moses
only, but the _books_ of Moses, containing those former prophecies,
which, as St. Peter says, had been delivered, _since the world began_.
[25] DR. MIDDLETON, p. 139.
[26] D. L. Vol. V. p. 288. Lond. 1765.
[27] Gal. iii. 24.—ὁ νόμος παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριϛόν—
[28] Coloss. ii. 17. Hence, St. Austin affirms roundly, “That, to such
as consider the genius of the revealed system, the Old Testament must
appear a continued prophecy of the New.”—_Vetus Testamentum_, rectè
_sentientibus_, PROPHETIA _est Novi Testamenti_ [_contr. Faustum_, l.
xv.]: and St. Jerom speaks of it as a generally-received maxim, “That
it is the manner of sacred scripture, to deliver, beforehand, the truth
of futurity, in types”—_hunc esse morem scripturæ sanctæ ut futurorum
veritatem præmittat_, in TYPIS [Hieron. T. III. 1127.]—I know,
that the ancient Fathers, and from them many moderns, have exposed
themselves to much and deserved censure, by pursuing this principle
too minutely and superstitiously, in their mystical and allegorical
comments on the Jewish scriptures. But men of sense will consider,
that a principle is not therefore to be rejected, because it has been
abused. For instance, that the Passover was instituted with a reference
to the sacrifice of Christ, that the paschal Lamb was, in the language
of St. Austin, a _prophecy_, or, in that of St. Jerom, a _type_, of
the lamb of God, will seem highly credible to one who considers the
aptness of the correspondence in two related parts of the same system:
But, that the famous Law in Deuteronomy, concerning the marriage of a
brother’s widow, was _prophetic_, or _typical_ of the duty, incumbent
on the ministers of the Gospel, to espouse the widowed church of
Christ, is certainly much less clear, and will scarcely be admitted
even on the authority of St. Austin.—Hoc ipsum—quod uxorem fratris ad
hoc frater jussus est ducere, ut non sibi, sed illi sobolem suscitaret,
ejusque vocaret nomine, quod inde nasceretur: quid aliud _in figurâ
præmonstrat_, nisi quia unusquisque Evangelii prædicator ita debet
in Ecclesiâ laborare, ut defuncto fratri, hoc est Christo, suscitet
semen, qui pro nobis mortuus est, et quod suscitatum fuerit, ejus nomen
accipiat? _Contr. Faustum_, l. 32.—St. Austin might, perhaps, say
for himself, that he had an example of this practice in the mystical
comments of St. Paul: it may be so: but an _example_, followed without
warrant, in this instance, by the learned Father, and, not improbably,
ill understood by him.
[29] Adv. of Learning, B. II.
[30] DR. MIDDLETON, _Works_, vol. III. p. 177. _London_, 1752, 4to.
[31] DR. MIDDLETON, vol. III. p. 177.
[32] See further on this subject, D. L. vol. V. p. 290.
[33] Quand UN SEUL HOMME auroit fait un livre des prédictions de Jesus
Christ pour le tems et pour la maniere, et que Jesus Christ seroit venu
conformément à ces propheties, ce seroit une force infinie. Mais il y
a bien plus ici. C’est une SUITE D’HOMMES durant quatre mille ans, qui
constamment & sans variation viennent l’un ensuite de l’autre prédire
ce même avénement. C’est UN PEUPLE TOUT ENTIER qui l’annonce, et qui
subsiste pendant quatre mille années, pour rendre EN CORPS témoignage
des assurances qu’ils en ont, & dont ils ne peuvent être detournés par
quelques menaces et quelque persecution qu’on leur fasse: CECI EST TOUT
AUTREMENT CONSIDERABLE.
Pascal.
[34] See the passage before referred to in Serm. I. p. 6.
[35] Daniel, c. ii.
[36] Est autem Quaternio iste regnorum Danielis (quod imprimis
observari velim) CHRONOLOGIA QUÆDAM PROPHETICA, non tam annorum
quàm regnorum intervallis distincta, ubi regnorum in præcipuâ orbis
terrarum parte, simul ecclesiam et populum Dei complexâ, sibi invicem
succedentium serie, monstratur tempus quo Christi regnum à tot seculis
promissum et primùm inchoandum sit, idemque demum certis temporibus
consummandum.
—Ex his, quæ dicta sunt, ratio elucet, quare, ex omnibus mundi regnis,
quatuor hæc sola selegit Spiritus sanctus, quorum fata tam insigni
ornaret prophetiâ; nempe quia ex his solis inter omnia mundi regna
periodus temporum ejusmodi contexi potuit, qua rectâ serie et ordinatâ
successione perduceret ad tempora et momenta regni Christi. Non verò
quia nulla istis paria imperia, forsan et aliquibus majora, per omnia
secula orbis visurus esset. Nam neque Saracenorum olím, neque hodie
Turcarum, neque Tartarorum regna ditionis amplitudine Persico aut
Græco, puto nec Assyrio, quicquam concedunt; imò, ni fallor, excedunt.
MEDE’S Works, B. III. p. 712. Lond. 1672.
[37] To this purpose the late learned and ingenious author of the
_Discourses on Prophecy_—“A figurative and dark description of
a future event will be figurative and dark still, when the event
happens.” And again—“No event can make a figurative or metaphorical
expression to be a plain or literal one.” Bishop Sherlock, _Disc._ II.
p. 32 and 36. London, 1749.
[38] Le dessein de Dieu est plus de perfectionner la volonté, que
l’esprit. Or, la clarté parfaite ne serviroit qu’à l’esprit, & nuiroit
à la volonté. Pascal.
[39] Rom. iv. 17.
[40] Ταῦτα ὁ Θεὸς προεμήνυσε διὰ τοῦ προφητικοῦ πνεύματος μέλλειν
γίνεσθαι, ἵν’, ὅταν γένηται, μὴ ἀπιϛηθῇ, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ προειρῆσθαι πιϛευθῇ.
J. MARTYR, _Apol._ I. c. 74.
[41] Yet hear in how decisive a tone a certain writer, of no small
account with the infidel party, reprobates this argument:—“Je dis
de plus, qu’aucune prophétie ne sauroit faire autorité pour moi.”
[Rousseau, Œuvres, T. III. p. 156. La Haye, 1762.] “I say,” says Mr.
Rousseau, “that the argument from prophecy can have no weight with
me.” If you ask his reason, it follows. “Because, to give it any
authority, three conditions are required, the concurrence of which is
impossible. First, I must have been, myself, a witness of the prophecy,
when delivered. Secondly, I must have been, myself; a witness of the
event: And lastly, I must have it demonstrated to me that the agreement
between the prophecy and the event could not have been fortuitous. For
though the prophecy were clearer, and more precise, than a geometrical
axiom, yet as the clearness of a prediction, made at hazard, does
not render the accomplishment of it impossible, this accomplishment,
allowing it to take place, proves nothing, strictly speaking, in favour
of the person who foretold it.”
First, he says, _He must himself have been a witness of the prophecy_.
But why so? Is there no way of being reasonably assured that a prophecy
has been delivered, unless one has been actually present at the
delivery of it? Does any one doubt, whether Socrates told his friend
that he should die within three days’ time, because he did not hear
these words from the mouth of the philosopher? But, there is less
reason still to doubt whether Jesus uttered the prophecies, ascribed to
him in the Gospel.
Next, _He must have been, himself, a witness of the event_. With just
as good reason, as of the prophecy. However, it so happens that we
are, or may be, if we please, witnesses of the events, foretold in
many prophecies. What does he think of the dispersion of the Jews, for
instance? Is he not a witness of this event?
But lastly, _He must have it demonstrated to him that the agreement
between the prophecy and the event could not have been fortuitous_.
What, will nothing less than _demonstration_ satisfy him? Will not
a high degree of probability serve him to form a conclusion upon,
nay, and to regulate his conduct? And will he stand out against the
strongest degree of evidence, short of mathematical, or a proof _à la
rigueur_, as he terms it, in a subject, where, from the nature of it,
mathematical certainty is not to be had?
Surely one needs be no great philosopher to see that all which is
wanting to give authority to the argument from prophecy, is, That we
have _reason_ to admit the delivery of a prediction—that we have
_reason_ to admit the completion of it—and that we have reason
to think the agreement between the prediction and the event not
fortuitous. And where is the impossibility that these three reasons
should concur?—It is plain that the only one of these three reasons
that appears in any degree problematical is the last concerning the
completion of a prophecy in its event, whether it be fortuitous or
not. Have I not reason then to say, as I do below p. 81, 82, that the
strength of the infidel cause lies in this last consideration?—But
what that strength is, we shall see as we go along.
[42] Socrates foretold that he should _dye within three days_: and the
event followed.—_Est apud Platonem Socrates, cùm esset in custodiâ
publicâ, dicens Critoni suo familiari, sibi post tertium diem esse
moriendum—quod, ut est dictum, sic scribitur contigisse_ [Cic. de
Div. l. i. c. 25.] Jesus foretold that he should suffer death by
_crucifixion_. [John iii. 14. viii. 28. xii. 32.] He, likewise,
foretold that he should _rise from the dead_, within _three days_ after
his crucifixion. [John ii. 19. Matth. xii. 39, 40.]—The _first_ of
these predictions might be a sagacious conjecture. Can it be said of
such, as the _two last_,—
_Augurium, ratio est, et conjectura futuri_?
Ovid. Trist. l. I. viii. 51.
[43] Hoc si est in libris, in _quem hominem_, et in _quod tempus_ est?
Callidè enim, qui illa composuit, perfecit, ut, quodcunque accidisset,
prædictum videretur, _hominum et temporum definitione sublatâ_—said,
in discredit of the Sibylline oracles [_De Div._ l. ii. p. 295. _fol.
Lutet._ 1565]: how far applicable to the scriptural prophecies, will be
seen in its place.
[44] Διὰ τὸ ὅλως εἶναι ἁμάρτημα ἔλαττον, διὰ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ πράγματος
λέγουσιν οἱ μάντεις. And again—οἱ χρησμολόγοι, οὐ προσορίζονται πότε.
Aristot. Rhet. l. iii. c. v.
[45] Permultorum exemplorum et nostra plena est respublica, et omnia
regna, omnesque populi, cunctæque gentes, augurum prædictis multa
incredibiliter vera cecidisse.
_Cic. de Leg._ l. ii. p. 337.
[46]
Certabant, urbem Romam, Remoramne vocarent.
Omnibu’ cura viris, uter esset induperator.
Cedunt de cœlo ter quatuor corpora sancta
Avium, præpetibus sese, pulchrisque locis dant.
Conspicit inde sibi data Romulus esse priora,
Auspicio regni stabilita scamna solumque.
_Cic. de Div._ l. i. c. 48.
[47] Quot sæcula urbi Romæ debeantur, dicere meum non est: sed, quid
apud Varronem legerim, non tacebo. Qui libro Antiquitatum duodevicesimo
ait, fuisse Vettium Romæ in augurio non ignobilem, ingenio magno,
cuivis docto in disceptando parem; eum se audisse dicentem: Si ita
esset, ut traderent historici, de Romuli urbis condendæ auguriis, ac
_duodecim vulturibus_; quoniam CXX annos incolumis præteriisset populus
Romanus, ad _mille et ducentos_ perventurum.
CENSORINUS _de die natali_, c. xvii. p. 97. Cantab. 1695.
[48] Hence Sidonius, in personating the city of Rome, makes her ask—
Quid, rogo, _bis seno_ mihi _vulture_ Thuscus aruspex
_Portendit_?
Sidon. Carm. vii. 55.
And again, addressing himself to the same city,
Jam propè fata _tui bissenas vulturis alas_
Complebant (scis namque tuos, scis, _Roma_, labores.)
Ib. ver. 358.
And, before him, Claudian, to the same purpose—
Tunc reputant annos, _interceptoque volatu
Vulturis_, incidunt properatis sæcula metis.
B. G. ver. 262.
[49] Medea, ver. 374.
[50] _Annis seris._
[51] Ferdinand.
[52] _Casu_, inquis. Itáne verò quicquam potest esse _casu_ factum,
quod omnes habet in se numeros veritatis? Quatuor tali jacti, _casu_
Venereum efficiunt. Num etiam centum Venereos, si CCCC talos jeceris,
_casu_ futuros putas? _De Div._ l. i. p. 259, Lutet. 1565.—Had the
supposed case been fairly applied to the subject, there had been an
end of the dispute; as may appear from the pitiful answer, made in the
next book to this reasoning—dixisti multa de _casu_: ut, Venereum jaci
posse casu, quatuor talis jactis; quadringentis, centum Venereos non
posse casu consistere. Primùm, NESCIO, CUR NON POSSINT.—Was this, like
a philosopher?
[53] Multa vera, inquit, evadere. Quid, quòd multo plura, falsa? Nónne
ipsa varietas, quæ est propria fortunæ, fortunam esse causam, non
naturam, docet? _De Div._ l. ii. p. 295. This, methinks, looks like
sense.
[54] See the ancient apologists, who are frequent and large on this
subject; and, of the moderns, see especially Huetii _Dem. Evang.
Prop._ IX.—Bishop Kidder’s _Dem. of the Messias_, c. ii. p. 17,
18. London, 1726, fol.—Dr. Clarke’s _Evidences of Nat. and Rev.
Religion_.—_Pensées de M. Pascal_, p. 108.
[55] I take these examples to be more in point, than those given by
Bishop Butler in his _Analogy_, P. II c. vii. p. 386. Lond. 1740: not
but those, too, have their weight.
[56] Grotius.
[57] Serm. II.
[58] Ἀπ’ αἰῶνος. Luke i. 70.
[59] This use and intent of prophecy was seen, and admirably expressed,
by the great _M. Pascal_—“Les propheties sont mêlées de propheties
particulieres, et de celles du Messie, afin que les propheties
du Messie ne fussent pas sans _preuves_, et que les propheties
particulieres ne fussent pas sans _fruit_.” _Pensées_, p. 112.
[60] _The Lord himself shall give you a sign_, Isai. vii. 14.—This
SIGN (and the extraordinary introduction of it, in the words quoted,
indicates no less) had plainly a recondite and even complicated meaning!
1. As addressed to _Ahaz_, it was simply an ASSURANCE, that his
deliverance from his two great enemies was now at hand.
2. As addressed to the _house of David_—_Hear ye now, O house of
David_—it was a TYPE of Christ.
3. It was, farther, a TOKEN, or pledge, that the remote deliverance of
the house of David by Immanuel, should hereafter take place, just as
the approaching deliverance of Ahaz, by the prophet’s Son, would be
seen to do.
4. This sign, when fulfilled in the near event, would, thenceforward,
become a PROOF, or evidence, that it would be fulfilled in the remote
one.
5. Lastly, in the Antitype, the sign was a MIRACLE, properly so called.
So eminently was this Child, a SIGN! A _sign_, in all the _senses_
of the word, as employed by the Jewish prophets; and to all the
_purposes_, for which signs were given.
[61] Ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν τὰ γενόμενα ἤδη πάντα ἀποδείκνυμεν, πρὶν ἢ
γενέσθαι, προκεκηρύχθαι διὰ τῶν προφητῶν, ἀνάγκη καὶ περὶ τῶν
ὁμοίως προφητευθέντων, μελλόντων δὲ γίνεσθαι, πίϛιν ἔχειν ὡς πάντως
γενησομένων.
JUSTIN MARTYR, _Apol._ i. c. 87.
[62] Isaiah vii. 16. Daniel ix. 24.
[63] Mal. iv. 5. Luke xvi. 16.
[64] Joel ii. 28, 29.
[65] Is not their case exactly delineated by the prophet
Ezekiel—_Mischief shall come upon mischief, and rumour shall be upon
rumour; then shall they_ SEEK A VISION OF THE PROPHET; i. e. they shall
seek what they shall not find, _for the_ LAW _shall perish from the
priest, and_ COUNCIL _from the ancients_; i. e. their ecclesiastical
and civil polity, to which prophecy was annexed, shall be utterly
abolished. See Ezekiel vii. 26. and compare Isaiah iii. 1, 2.
[66] See A. VAN DALE, _de Oraculorum ethnicorum duratione atque
interitu_.
[67] The sacred text says—_myriads_—θεωρεῖς, ἀδελφὲ, πόσαι μυριάδες
εἶσιν Ἰουδαίων τῶν πεπιϛευκότων—Acts xxi. 20.
[68] Acts x.
[69] Acts xiii. 42. 48.
[70] Τίνι γὰρ ἂν λόγῳ ἀνθρώπῳ ϛαυρωθέντι ἐπειθόμεθα, ὅτι πρωτότοκος
τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ ἐϛι, καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν κρίσιν τοῦ παντὸς ἀνθρωπείου γένους
ποιήσεται, εἰ μὴ μαρτύρια, πρὶν ἐλθεῖν αὐτὸν ἄνθρωπον γενόμενον,
κεκηρυγμένα περὶ αὐτοῦ εὕρομεν, καὶ οὕτως γενόμενα ὁρῶμεν;
JUSTIN MARTYR, _Apol._ i. c. 88.
[71] Acts xv. 18.
[72] Isaiah xl. 21.
[73] We see this design very plainly, in the prophecies of Jesus
concerning _his own death and resurrection_; concerning _the descent of
the holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost_; concerning _events, that were
to befall his disciples_; and in other instances.
[74] La plus grande des preuves de Jesus Christ, ce sont les
propheties. C’est aussi à quoi Dieu a la plus pourvû; car l’evenement,
qui les a remplies, est un MIRACLE SUBSISTANT depuis la naissance de
l’Eglise jusqu’ à la fin.
_M. Pascal._
[75] For these particulars, see Dr. Jortin’s _Rem. on Ecclesiastical
History_, vol. I. p. 20-89.
[76] An event, it must be owned, the more likely to happen, as the Jews
had always been disposed to _trust to their high and fenced walls_;
which yet could never defend them from their enemies, as their history
shews, and, as Moses had distinctly foretold, _Deut._ xxviii. 52.