Volume 1 — SERMON V. PROPHECIES CONCERNING CHRIST’S FIRST COMING. Isaiah xlii. 9.

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

The preceding discourses were designed, to open the general idea of prophecy; and to enforce the general argument from it, in proof of our holy Religion.

The way being thus far cleared, we now advance a step farther, and take a nearer view of THE PROPHECIES THEMSELVES.

These prophecies may be considered under two heads. They either respect, the person and character and office of the Messiah; or, the fate and fortunes of that kingdom, which he came to establish in the world.

Divines call the former of these, Prophecies of his FIRST COMING: and the other, Prophecies of his SECOND. Only, it may be proper to observe, That the second advent of the Messiah is not, like the first, confined to one single and precise period, but is gradual and successive. This distinction is founded in the reason of the thing. He could only come, in person, at one limited time. He comes, in his power and his providence, through all ages of the church. His first coming was then over, when he expired on the cross. His second, commenced with his resurrection, and will continue to the end of the world. So that this last coming of Jesus is to be understood of his spiritual kingdom; which is not one act of sovereignty, exerted at once; but a state or constitution of government, subsisting through a long tract of time, unfolding itself by just degrees, and coming, as oft, as the conductor of it thinks fit to interpose by any signal acts of his administration. And in this sense, we are directed to pray, that his kingdom, though long since set up, may come; that is, may advance through all its stages, till it arrive at that full state of glory, in which it shall shine out in the great day, as it is called, the day of judgment.

It will be seen, as we advance in the present inquiry, to what use this distinction serves.

The former set of prophecies are presumed to have had their completion, in the history of Jesus; The latter set, have had, or are to find, their accomplishment, in the history of his Religion; And of THESE only, it is the purpose of this Lecture to speak.

But, though the prophecies of Christ’s first coming (so largely and accurately considered by many great writers) be not the immediate subject of our inquiry, yet they must not be wholly overlooked by us. It will contribute very much to rectify and enlarge our ideas of the divine conduct, in this whole dispensation of prophecy, and to make way for that conviction, which the prophecies of Christ’s second coming were intended to give, if we stop a while to contemplate the method and œconomy of that prophetic system, by which the first advent of the Messiah was announced and prepared.

It is assumed, as a first principle on this subject, That Jesus was the ultimate end and object of all the prophecies57: which beginning from the foundation of the world58, 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 Messiah59.

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 sign60, 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 Christ61. 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 coming62; 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 Messiah63; 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 Messiah64. 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 consolation65.

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 paganism66. 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 multitudes67, 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 Cornelius68; and the Apostle Paul, urging it with effect, on the Jews indeed first, but also on the Asiatic Gentiles69. 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 argument70. 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.