Chapter III: Part 3

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].

If it be said, “that the pagan oracles ceased, too, about the same time; and that the same cause, namely, the diffused light and knowledge of the Augustan age, was fatal to both;” besides, that this diffusion of light, for obvious reasons, was not likely to affect the Jewish prophecies, and did not, as we certainly know, in any degree diminish the credit of them, with that people, the fact itself, assumed in the objection, is plainly false. For the pagan oracles continued for several ages after that of Augustus; they became less frequent, only, as Christianity gained ground; and were not silenced, but among the last struggles of expiring paganism[66]. So that if the Jewish prophecies, like those of the Gentile world, had been the issue of _fraud_, or _fanaticism_ (_principles_, that operate at all times, and, with redoubled force and activity, in the dark days of persecution) one does not see, why they might not have continued to this day among the bigoted professors of that religion.

Now, put all these things together, that is, The long duration of the prophetic system—the mutual dependance and close connexion of its several parts—the consistency and uniformity of its views, all terminating in one point—and the final suppression of it (as was likewise foretold) at the very time, when those views were accomplished; consider, I say, all this, and see, if there be not something more than a blind credulity in the advocates for the divinity of such a system. See, if there be any instance upon record—of so numerous prophecies—so long continued—so intimately related to each other and to one common end—so apparently verified—and so signally concluded. If there be, I shall not wonder at the suspense and hesitation of _wise men_, on this subject: but if, on the other hand, no such thing was ever seen, or heard of, out of the land of Judæa, they must excuse us if we incline to think their diffidence misplaced, and their scruples unnecessary, at least, if not disingenuous.

I descend no farther into a detail on the scriptural prophecies concerning Christ’s _first coming_. The immensity of the subject, and the plan prescribed to me in this Lecture, equally restrain me from this attempt. _Obscurities_ there may, and must be, in so vast a scheme: _Objections_ may, and must occur to the construction and application of particular prophecies. But let any serious man take the Bible into his hands; let him consider, not _all_ the prophecies in that book, but such as are more obvious and intelligible; and let him compare such _prophecies_, as he must acknowledge, and may, in part at least, understand, with the _facts_, in which he sees their completion, or so far, as he may think it _probable_ that they have been completed; and I dare be confident that such an inquirer will be much struck with the amount of the evidence from prophecy, in support of divine revelation. If, indeed, on this general survey, he find nothing to affect him, I shall not desire him to push his researches into the more secret and mysterious prophecies: much less, shall I advise him to wade through that cloud of smaller difficulties, in which the ignorant temerity of some writers, and the _obscure diligence_ of others, hath involved _this_, as it easily may any other, subject.

TO SPEAK PLAINLY, the only consideration, which to me seems likely to perplex fair and candid minds, is this—“That the argument from prophecy is understood to be addressed to those, who admit the divinity of the Jewish scriptures—that the Jews themselves were eminently in this situation—that, besides this advantage, the Jews were better qualified, than any others, to interpret their own prophecies; and to judge of their completion—and yet, that these very men neither were, nor are convinced by this argument.”

Several things are here asserted, which deserve to be explained. I take them in an inverted order.

I. It is said, “_that the Jews were not, and are not to this day, convinced by the argument from prophecy_.” This allegation is in part _false_: for multitudes[67], from among the Jews, were, in the apostolic age, converted to Christianity; and these are well known to have laid a peculiar stress on this argument. The greater part of that people, indeed, disbelieved, and have continued to this day in their infidelity. But then let it be considered, 1. that we have an adequate cause of this effect, in the _prejudices_ of the Jewish nation; _prejudices_, of which their whole history evidently convicts them. 2. That, notwithstanding their rejection of Jesus, they admit the existence and authority of those prophecies, which we apply to him; and that they themselves have constantly applied these very prophecies to their expected Messiah: so that the question between us is only this, Whether they, or we, _rightly_ apply them. 3. That their perverse obstinacy in refusing to submit to the evidence of their prophecies, is itself foretold by their own prophets.

II. But it is further said, “_that their authority, in this controversy, is greater than ours, for that they must best understand their own prophecies, and judge best of their completion_.”

1. I do not perceive on what ground of reason this is said. The old prophecies belong to us, as well as to them; and have been considered with as much diligence by Christian, as by Jewish expositors. Their customs, their history, their traditions, are equally known to both parties. Their very language hath been studied by Christians with a care, not inferior to that which the Jews themselves employ upon it; with a _care_, that not unfrequently, in _both_, hath degenerated into superstition.

If it be said, “that the _ancient_ Jews, that is, the Jews in the time of Christ, must have been better qualified, than we now are, to interpret the prophecies, the language, they spoke, being only a dialect of that in which the prophecies are written,” the answer is already given, under the last article: to which we may further add, that Christianity being much better understood now, than it was then, the force of the prophetic language concerning it (if, indeed, the prophecies have any such thing in view) must be more distinctly apprehended, in many instances, by Christians at this day, than it could be by the Jews, even when they spoke a dialect of the Hebrew language. So that still I do not see, upon the whole, what advantage the Jews, whether of ancient or modern times, can be thought to have over us, in explaining the prophetic scriptures. And then

2. As to the _completion_ of the prophecies, the same histories are in the hands of both: and if they do not apply them, as we do the appeal is open to common sense. Every man is left at liberty to judge for himself, which side is best supported in the application of them. The prejudice might, indeed, be thought equal on _both_ sides, if it were not decided by their own scriptures, that no prejudice of any people upon earth was ever so invincible, as that of the Jews.

3. Lastly, on both heads, there is a peculiar presumption, that they, and not we, are misled by prejudice: It is this: They were led by their prophecies, as interpreted by themselves, to expect that they would be completed at the _time_, in which, we say, they were completed; and it was not till after the coming of Christ that they began to interpret them differently, and to look out for another completion of them. Judge then, if they, or we, are likely to have erred most, through prejudice, in expounding and applying the prophecies. The natural and proper sense will be thought to be that, in which we take them; for that sense occurred first to themselves, and was, in truth, _their_ sense, before we adopted it.

When I say—_their sense_—I mean, especially, in respect to the _time_, which they had fixed for the accomplishment of the prophecies concerning the Messiah: for, as to their giving a _temporal_ sense to some prophecies, in which we find a _spiritual_, that is another matter, concerning which, as I said, the appeal lies to every competent and dispassionate inquirer. In the mean time, it must be thought some presumption in favour of the Christian interpretation, that, whereas the JEWS, in rejecting a spiritual or mystical sense of those prophecies (which yet is admitted by them, without scruple, on other occasions, and is well suited to the genius of their whole religion) are driven to the necessity of supposing a _two-fold Messias_—a new conceit, taken up, without warrant from their scriptures, and against their own former ideas and expectations—WE, on the contrary, by the help of that spiritual sense, are able to explain all the prophecies of _one and the same Messias_, conformably to the _event_, and even to the _time_ which the Jews themselves had prefixed for the completion of them.

Now, when, of two interpretations, _one_ has apparently all the marks of shift, constraint, and distress in it, and the _other_ comes out easy, uniform, and consistent; we may guess beforehand, as I said, which of them is likely to be well-founded.

III. Still it is pretended, “that the argument from prophecy is properly addressed to those only who admit the divinity of the Jewish scriptures, as the Jews have invariably done; and that it hath no force, but on that previous supposition. Why then is the argument pressed on others, who do not believe the divine authority of those scriptures? And how should it prevail with _any_, whether believers or not, when the Jews themselves, who of all men most firmly believe that authority, are not convinced by it?”

The _latter_ part of the difficulty, which respects the incredulity of the Jews, hath been already removed; so far, I mean, as it is founded on their prejudices. As for the _assertion_, “That the argument from prophecy presupposes the truth and divinity of the Jewish scriptures, and must therefore have most weight with the Jews, or rather hath no weight at all, but with them, or with others, who admit that common principle,” though something, like this, may have been said, I take it to be wholly unsupported, as well by _fact_, as by any _good reason_.

1. I argue against this assumption from _fact_; that is, from the _method_, taken by the early Christians to convert the Gentile world, and from the _success_ of that method.

If we look into the history of the Gospel, we shall find the Apostle Peter, pressing this argument from prophecy on the gentile Cornelius[68]; and the Apostle Paul, urging it with effect, on the Jews indeed first, but also on the Asiatic Gentiles[69]. If we turn to the Christian apologists, we shall find them addressing this topic to Gentile unbelievers, nay, as venturing the whole cause of Christianity on this single argument[70]. Justin Martyr makes as free use of it in his apology to the Antonines, as in his dialogues with Trypho. We know, too, the success of this argument, thus employed, in many instances: and therefore see, as well the _fitness_ of the argument to produce this effect, as the _judgment_ of the Apostles and primitive Christians concerning its fitness. But to come

2. _to the reason of the thing_.

The Jews, who professed to believe, and did, in fact, believe, the divine inspiration of their sacred oracles, were, doubtless, bound by their own principles, to expect with assurance the due completion of them. The Gentiles, who did not previously respect those oracles as of divine authority, but regarded them only in the light of human conjectures, yet saw that such passages, whether we call them oracular or conjectural, did, in truth, occur in the Jewish scriptures; and were obliged to admit, on the faith of historical testimony, that those scriptures were composed by the persons whose names they bear, and at the times fixed for the composition of them. What then is the difference of the two cases? Only this: the Jews believed that their oracles would be fulfilled, because they held them to be divine; the Gentiles had to wait till those oracles were fulfilled, before they acknowledged their divinity. In either case, the argument is independent of the belief, or the expectation, and turns on the completion only. Then, indeed, the Jew sees that his belief was well founded, and the Gentile admits that the prediction was divine.

The mistake would be equal, on the other hand, to conceive, that the argument from prophecy pre-supposes the divine inspiration of the New Testament. It pre-supposes only the historical truth of that book. Admit this, and compare the events recorded in that history, with the prophecies to which they correspond, and the divinity of both Testaments is proved. For then, the pretensions of Jesus are made good, by the _completion_ of the prophecies; and the inspiration of the prophets is concluded, from the _delivery_ of them.

In both cases (let me repeat it) it is not the authority of the books containing the prophecies, nor of the books recording the facts in which they are fulfilled, but simply the _completion_ of the prophecies in those facts, seen and acknowledged, which infers the divinity of either Testament. Even the Jew would retract his high opinion of the prophecies, if he did not admit or expect the accomplishment of them; and the Christian would renounce his faith in Jesus, if his history did not accord to the prophecies, alledged.

’Tis true, that, with either, the argument would gain more _attention_, than with such as professed no previous belief in the divinity of the Old or New Testament. But its force is really the same, on both suppositions. It lies merely in the conviction, which one hath from the evidence produced, that certain prophetic passages were delivered in the _Old_ Testament, and have been fulfilled by certain corresponding events, related in the _New_.

On the whole, there is no reason to conclude, that we are not as good judges of the argument from prophecy, as the Jews were; or, that this argument ought to have the less weight with us, because the Jews were not convinced by it. For the argument doth in no degree depend on _faith_, but is calculated to produce it. It is equally strong, or equally weak, to a Christian, or Jew, or even to an unbeliever: the sole point in question being this, Whether such things, as were prophetically delivered, appear to have been fulfilled: a point, on which common sense and common honesty will equally decide, on every supposition.

I know, indeed, that, unless we suppose the inspiration of the prophets, _some_ passages, delivered by them, will not so probably be thought to _intend_ Christ, as they will be, if we acknowledge that principle: and, on the other hand, that there are _some_ circumstances in the history of Jesus, which will not be so readily seen to _refer_ to preceding prophecies, if the inspiration of Jesus and his Apostles be not previously admitted. But I do not argue, at present, from either of these topics. There are passages enough, clearly _predictive_ of the Messiah, and clearly _accomplished_ in him, to afford a solid foundation for the argument from prophecy, as here instituted, without looking out for any other of more nice and ambiguous interpretation.

Hence we see the dangerous mistake of those, who contend that the argument from prophecy hath not, of itself, the nature of a _direct positive proof_ of our religion. Prophecies fulfilled, I mean such prophecies as _those_ in question, prove invincibly the divine inspiration of the prophets. But, if the prophets were inspired, the divine mission of him, in whom the predicted marks of the Messiah meet, must needs be acknowledged. And what more is required to prove the truth of Christianity? Not even the evidence of _miracles_, performed by Christ, if the prophecies had not made them one mark of his character. The truth is, _Prophecies_ and _Miracles_ are, in themselves, two distinct positive proofs. Either proof is _direct_, and would have been sufficient, if the other had not been given. But the divine goodness, for our more abundant satisfaction, and to leave infidelity without excuse, hath made the one proof dependent on the other: so that neither the argument from prophecy is complete, without the _miracles_; nor the argument from miracles, as applied to Christ, unless he likewise appear to have fulfilled the _prophecies_. Can we desire a stronger proof, that neither _they_, who predicted the _miracles_, were _false prophets_, nor _he_, who claimed to himself the application of ALL the _prophecies_, was a _false Messiah_?

These reflexions, on the _method and order_ of the prophecies, of those especially concerning Christ’s FIRST COMING; together with what has been said on the _independency_ of this argument on Jewish or Christian concessions; may serve to convince us, That we shall do well to suspend our conclusions concerning the evidence of prophecy, till we have examined the _whole_ subject. In the mean time, _this part_ of the subject, thus far opened and explained, leads us, with advantage, to the consideration of _that_, which is yet behind and is the peculiar object of this Lecture, I mean _the prophecies concerning_ CHRIST’S SECOND COMING.

SERMON VI.

PROPHECIES CONCERNING CHRIST’S SECOND COMING.

ISAIAH xlii. 9.

_Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth, I tell you of them._

It must strike the most careless reader of the prophecies to observe, that the general subject of them all was announced from the earliest time, and was only drawn out more distinctly by succeeding prophets: that, of the two _ages_, into which the world of God, I mean his _religious_ world, is divided in holy scripture, the _former_, which abounds most in prophecy, was plainly made subservient to the _latter_: that not only the events of that preceding age are foretold by its own prophets, but that the fortunes of the last, and very remote age, are occasionally revealed by them; and that the same oracles, which attest the _first coming_ of Christ, as if impatient to be confined to so narrow bounds, overflow, as it were, into the future age, and expatiate on the principal facts and circumstances of his _second coming_.

By this divine artifice, if I may so speak, the two dispensations, the Jewish and Christian, are closely tied together, or rather compacted into one intire harmonious system; such, as we might expect, if it were indeed formed, and conducted by him, _to whom are known all his works from the beginning_[71].

So that, in respect of the fortunes, which were to befall the Christian church, even in the _latter days_, we may still ask, in the triumphant terms of the Jewish prophet—_Have ye not known? Have ye not heard? Hath it not been told you from the beginning? Have ye not understood from the foundation of the earth[72]?_

But, though this subject was opened by the old prophets, so far as seemed expedient in that _age_, and clearly enough, to shew the integrity and continuity of the whole system, it was more illustriously, because more distinctly, displayed by the evangelical prophets.

And here, again, the same provision of wisdom and goodness meets us, as before. The Christian prophets, like the Jewish, bespeak our attention to what they reveal of the greater and more distant events in their dispensation, by other less momentous prophecies, which were speedily to be accomplished[73]; thus, impressing upon us an awful sense of their divine foresight, and procuring an easy credit from us to their subsequent predictions: _while the events, which both these prophetic schemes point out, are so distributed through all time, as to furnish, successively, to the several ages of the world, the means of a fresh and still growing conviction_[74].

AS THE ORDER of these Discourses, now, leads me to exemplify this _last_ observation, I shall do it in THREE remarkable prophecies concerning the Christian church; I mean those, which respect 1. THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. 2. THE DISPERSION OF THE JEWS. And 3. THE CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES.

I refer to these prophecies, as well known. They are in the number of those, which, in part, were delivered by the Jewish prophets; and afterwards, more distinctly revealed by the Christian.

I. THE DESTRUCTION OF THE JEWISH CITY AND TEMPLE, is an event of the utmost moment in the view of revealed religion. It accomplished a great number of prophecies, and vindicated the honour of Jesus, by a signal vengeance on his murderers. It answered, besides, _other_ important purposes of divine providence; by putting a visible and necessary end to the Jewish œconomy, which was now to give way to the dispensation of the Messiah; and by dispersing the Jews into all lands, for many wise and admirable reasons. Hence, of all the prophecies, delivered by Christ himself (who was a prophet, though indeed _much more than a prophet_) _This_ alone is displayed by him, at large, and in all its circumstances.

If any man, unacquainted with these matters, should doubt, whether this prophecy of Jesus, as recorded in three of the four Gospels, were not delivered, that is, _forged_, after the event, I might refer him to the numerous writers on that subject. But I hold it sufficient to say, 1, On the faith of all antiquity, that these Gospels were not only written, but published to the world, before the destruction of Jerusalem—2, that the early date of their composition is apparent from many internal characters, dispersed through these writings—3, that no interpolation of this prophecy could afterwards take place, because the prophecy is interwoven with the general thread of the history—and, 4, lastly, that no unbeliever of the primitive times, whether Jew or Gentile, when pressed, as both frequently were, by this prophecy, appears to have had recourse to the charge, either of forgery, or interpolation[75].

The authenticity and early date of the prophecy is, then, on these grounds, assumed.

I will, further, suppose (because the history of Josephus invincibly proves it) that all the particulars, mentioned in this prophecy, concurred in the _event_.

“But this, you will say, might well be: for what more _uniform_, than the characters of distress in a _great_ city, forced and desolated by a superior enemy? And what more _probable_, than that, some time or other, such should be the fate of _every_ great city?”

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.

_First_, I observe, that this destruction was to come from _the hands of the Romans_[77]; and, without doubt, if it were to happen in any reasonable time, it could not so probably be expected to come from any other quarter. But, then, was it _likely_ that Judæa, at that time a Roman province, should be thus isolated by its own masters? Was it to be _presumed_, that so small a province should dare to engage in a formal contest with Rome, the mistress of the world, as well as of Judæa? with Rome, then the zenith of her power, and irresistible to all nations? Was it _conceivable_, if any future distraction of that mighty empire should tempt the Jews to oppose their feeble efforts to its high fortune, that a vengeance so signal, so complete, should be taken upon them? that nothing less than a total _extermination_ should be proposed, and effected? The ruin of the temple at Jerusalem was to be so entire, that _one stone should not be left upon another_. Allow for the exaggerated terms of a prophetic description; still, was it _imaginable_, that the Romans should, in any proper sense of the words, execute this denunciation? Was it _their_ way, as it was afterwards that of the Goths, to wage war with _stones_? Was it a principle with _them_, to beat down the _pride_ of buildings, as well as of _men_[78]? Would even their _policy_, or their _pride_, have suffered them to blot out an ancient, a renowned, an illustrious temple, the chief ornament of their province, the glory of the East, and the trophy of their own conquests?

Such an event was very improbable, in contemplation: and history shews, that it did not come to pass in any ordinary way. For the instrument, in the hands of Heaven, of this exterminating vengeance, was a man, the most unlikely of all others to inflict it; a man, who by nature abhorred such extremities; who, in fact, did his utmost to prevent this dreadful catastrophe, and _could not_ prevent it[79].—Still, a more unmanageable circumstance, than this, occurs in the prophecy. For,

_Secondly_, it is implied that ONE of our Lord’s disciples should survive this desolation[80]: and it is expressly asserted, that the then _subsisting generation should not pass away, before all these things were accomplished_[81]. They WERE accomplished, within forty years from the date of the prophecy, and before the death of that disciple. The fact is certain and undeniable: I leave the rest to your own reflexions.

_Thirdly_, warning is given in this prophecy to the disciples of Jesus, to fly from this impending ruin; and a signal is held out to them, for that purpose[82]. It is further predicted, that they should avail themselves of this signal and so entirely escape the snare, in which the rest of their countrymen should be taken, that _not a hair of their heads should perish_[83]. And this part of the prophecy was, it seems, completed[84].

_Lastly_, this prophecy was incumbered with another strange event, _needlessly_ incumbered with it, if the whole were an imposture. It is said, _that the Gospel should be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations_, before it should be fulfilled. Was it not enough to say, that the prophecy should be accomplished in the time of that generation, and in the life-time of St. John, without adding so unlikely a circumstance, as that a general promulgation of the Gospel, by a few unlettered and unfriended fishermen, should precede the accomplishment of it?—I know, that this part of the prophecy admits a secondary sense: but, in the primary sense, it was so far fulfilled, as to astonish us with the divine foresight of its author.

I omit other considerations, that might be alledged. But you see that, setting aside such particulars in the prophecy, as sceptical men may think themselves able to draw within the sphere of _human conjecture_, there are several things expressed in it, so strange to all apprehension, so unlikely to happen, so impossible for any natural sagacity to foresee, and yet so certainly and punctually fulfilled, that nothing short of _divine inspiration_ can possibly account for them. The prophecy, in all its parts, is divine: but in _these_, its divinity is clear and incontestable.

II. THE DISPERSION OF THE JEWS, is another event, which deserves your consideration.

Moses himself had predicted this circumstance of their fortune, in terms of the greatest energy. He had told them—_that they should be removed into all the kingdom of the earth, and that they should be scattered among all people from one end of the earth even unto the other_—that, among the nations, into which they should be driven, _they should find no ease, nor rest, and that they should be only oppressed and crushed alway_—that they should _become an astonishment, a proverb, and a by-word among all nations_—and that _their plagues should be wonderful, and of long continuance_[85]. These prophecies had been, to a certain degree, fulfilled in other parts of their history: but there was to be a time, when _the wrath of God should come upon them to the uttermost_[86]. This time was now come, when their city was destroyed, and their land desolated, by the arms of Titus. Then, as Jesus prophesied of them, _were the days of vengeance, that all things, which were written, should be fulfilled_: then, were they _to be led away captive into all nations_: and thenceforth, _was Jerusalem to be trodden down of the Gentiles, until_ THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES SHOULD BE FULFILLED[87].

Nor say, that this _last_ prophecy is _indefinite_: for _the times of the Gentiles_ is a period, well known in the prophetic writings; a period, of long duration indeed, as the event hath shewn; yet a period, marked out by other prophecies (which may come, in turn, to be considered in this Lecture) no less distinctly, than their other captivities had been.

For, to all these predictions there must be added _one_ more, which expressly asserts the return of this people, in some future age, from their long and wretched dispersion: for _blindness, in part_, only, _hath happened to Israel_; and that again, _till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in_[88]. This, St. Paul terms _a mystery_: and yet the ancient prophets had a glimpse of it, when they foretold, _that the Lord would not make a full end of them_[89], and that a remnant of them _should remain, and should return in the latter days_[90]. Moses himself, who had denounced such heavy judgements upon them, and of so _long continuance_, during their dispersion, had mingled, with his woes, this one note of mercy—_And yet for all that, when they lie in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them_ UTTERLY, _and to break my covenant with them_[91].

Consider these predictions, and compare them with the present and past state of this people for seventeen hundred years; and see, if there be nothing to take your attention, or, rather, your astonishment, in the completion of them.

Why is this dreadful vengeance, _singular_ in its circumstances, and never yet experienced by any other people on the face of the earth, why is this peculiar vengeance executed on the Jews?—Or, whatever the _cause_ may be, is not the _fact_ such as was predicted?

“The predictions, you will say, have the appearance of being fulfilled. But where is the wonder, that a people, distinguished by a _singular_ religion, and above measure _addicted_ to it, should continue to exist under that distinction, and should be every where known by it? That a people, on account of their profession, more than commonly obnoxious to the other religious sects, among whom the earth hath been chiefly parcelled out—to the _Heathen_, for their unconquerable aversion to idolatry—to the _Christians_, for the atrocious murder of their founder—to the _Mahometans_, for the constant rejection of their prophet—should be the scorn and outcast of all three; and that, being excluded from the only country, to which they have any attachment, they should be vagabonds on the earth, and should disperse themselves indifferently through every quarter of it, as caprice, or interest, or convenience, invites them? that, lastly, being thus distinguished from all men, and thus at enmity with all, they should never be suffered to enter into any other civil community, or to establish a distinct community of their own?”

But the wonder doth not lie, altogether, where these questions seem to place it. That the Jews, while they profess themselves such, should be thus treated, may be natural enough: but that they should _continue_, for so many ages, under such treatment; every where and always spurned, reviled, oppressed; yet neither worn out by this usage; nor induced by it to renounce their offensive profession, and take refuge in the mass of people among whom they live; that neither time, nor custom, nor suffering, should get the better of their bigotry or patience; but that they should still subsist a numerous, a distinct, a wretched people, as they do, to this day—all this hath something prodigious in it, which the common principles of human nature will not easily explain[92].

We, who admit the divine origin of their religion; and, adore, with them, the extraordinary providence, by which their polity was so long administered and upheld; can, better than any others, explain this difficulty. For, what so likely to produce an invincible attachment to their Law, as the abundant evidence, they had of its authority? But neither will this account of the matter be found satisfactory. For, as if on purpose to discredit this solution, their history informs us, That _ten_, of the twelve tribes, which originally composed their nation, did, in fact, disappear under their last captivity, and were, in a good measure at least, absorbed in it. If such, then, was the fate of _Israel_ in its dispersion, within the compass of not many generations, and yet the relics of _Judah_ are still preserved in all countries to this day, what better or other reason can we assign for this difference of fortune in two branches of the same people, equally attached to the same divine Law, than that the _former_ were left to the natural consequences of a dispersion, and that the _latter_ were purposely kept from being affected by them, as the prophecies had distinctly foretold?

If it be still said, “That there is nothing more extraordinary in this continuance of the Jews, under their dispersion, than of other religionists in like circumstances; of the _Christians_ for instance, under the Turkish dominion;” the cases (to say nothing of the difference in point of _time_) are, in many respects, entirely unlike.

The Asiatic CHRISTIANS derive a confidence, and some degree of protection, from the many flourishing Christian empires, which subsist in other quarters of the world.

THEY, can perform all the duties of their religion, as perfectly in the countries, where they reside, as in any other.

THEY, have the future hopes of the Gospel, the proper sanction of their Law, to support them in all the distresses, to which their Christian profession may, at present, expose them. What is it to them, as St. Austin well observed in a like case, that they suffer for a season in a strange land; when even in their _own_, that is, a Christian country, they are still obliged, by the principles of their religion, to consider themselves, _as strangers and pilgrims on the earth_[93]?

The condition of the JEWS, on the other hand, is widely different. THEY, profess a religion, founded on temporal promises, only: and how miserably these have failed them, the experience of many ages hath now shewn.

The JEWS, are shut out from the only country in the world, where the several rites and ordinances of their religion can be regularly and _lawfully_ observed.

The JEWS, have, besides, the sensible mortification of knowing, that all their brethren of the dispersion are every where in equal distress with themselves; and that there is not one Jewish state or sovereignty subsisting on the face of the whole earth.

It follows, that in the JEWS, we find nothing but their _destiny_, so plainly read to them by their own prophets, as well as ours, to account for their long continuance in their present dispersion: whereas, the _Asiatic Christians_ have many resources of comfort within themselves; and may subsist, in Mahometan countries, on the same general motives and inducements, which sustain the courage of other unhappy men.

Yet, notwithstanding the advantages, here pointed out, on the side of the Asiatic Christians, the _fact_ is, that they are reduced to a very small number, and are insensibly melting away under the oppressions of their Ottoman masters; so that in no long time, if that enormous tyranny should be permitted to continue, they may, not improbably, quite vanish out of those countries, where they had formerly so many and flourishing churches: whereas, the Jews continue every where to abound in great numbers; they thrive under their oppressions; and seem to multiply amidst their distresses; as if the order of things were reversed in regard to them, and the same causes operated to the conservation of this people, which tend so naturally to the waste and destruction of every other.

Still, I have another reflexion, or two, to make on this interesting subject.

1. It deserves to be considered, that the _natives_ of any country, though subdued and enslaved by a foreign nation, may, indeed, subsist very long under that distinction. Thus, the Gentoo Indians have preserved their name and race, under their Mahometan invaders: and thus, the Moors, if they had not been violently expelled, might have continued a distinct people for many ages, in their old Spanish quarters. But that small colonies of men, transported into _strange_ and populous nations, should preserve a distinct existence, and not insensibly moulder away, and mix themselves with their numerous native masters; This, I think, is without example in the history of mankind. If the Jews might be expected to abound any where, it should, methinks, be in Judæa; where the sight of the _holy land_, and the memory of their past fortunes, might invigorate their prejudices, and perpetuate their attachment to the Jewish name and worship. But it so happens, that the number of Jews in that country hath now for many ages been inconsiderable, while they swarm in every other.