SUMMARY OF DISCOURSE II.

CONSIDERATION of the character which St. Peter gives to prophecy, and the degree of evidence we may reasonably expect from it; which amounts to this, that the knowlege which God gives us of things future by means of prophecy, is but imperfect and obscure; not to be compared with the clear knowlege that will attend on the manifestation of the things themselves. This proposition is confirmed by the authority of Scripture, and some useful observations on the nature and evidence of prophecy are suggested.

9-12.

If we look into the first epistle of St. Peter, we shall find that the ancient prophecies, of which he speaks in the text, and which he styles the more sure word of prophecy, were not apprehended or clearly understood by those inspired persons who delivered them see ch. i. 11. To the same purpose our Saviour speaks, Matt. xiii. 17. St. Paul also gives the like account of the gift of prophecy under the gospel dispensation, 1 Cor. xiii. Now if the prophets and righteous men of the Old and New Testament knew only in part, and prophesied only in part, seeing but darkly as through a glass, it is most evident that others less qualified must have had but a confused and indistinct notion of things foretold. The prophet Daniel, after an extraordinary vision, adds, I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel; for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Our Saviour gave a similar

answer to the Apostles, Acts i. 6.

7.

These passages relate to

such prophecies especially as seem to design the times and sea

sons of God's working; the delay of which often brought the prophets and their predictions into contempt: see Ezek. xii. 22. 27. The case is very much the same in regard to other prophecies: this point enlarged on and explained.

Hence it appears that prophecy was never intended to be a very distinct evidence; and St. Peter's meaning is shown, when he compares it to a light shining in a dark place, and makes this evidence so inferior to that which we are to receive when the fulness of time comes.

But allowing this to be the case of prophecy at the time of delivery, may we not expect to find the prophecy clear and distinct, and exactly corresponding with the event, whenever it comes into existence? Consequently is it not absurd, after an event is come to pass, to apply any ancient prophecies to it, that do not clearly, to the eye of common sense, appear to belong to it?

These questions being admitted, another will be asked; how comes it that many prophecies applied to our Saviour and his actions are still obscure, requiring learning and sagacity to show the connexion between them and events?

In answer to this it must be observed that the obscurity of prophecy does not arise from its being a relation or description of something future; since it is as easy to speak plainly of things future as of things past or present. It is not of the nature of prophecy therefore to be obscure; for if he who gives it thinks fit, it may be made as plain as history. On the other hand, a figurative and dark description of any future event will be figurative and dark still, when the event happens: this exemplified from Isaiah xi. 6. So that the argument from prophecy for the truth of the gospel does not rest on this, that the event has necessarily limited and ascertained the particular meaning of every prophecy; but on this, that every prophecy has in a proper sense been completed by the coming of Christ. We must not expect conviction from every single prophecy applied to

SHERL.

VOL. IV.

B

him the evidence must arise from a view and comparison of

all together.

Prophecies are not all of one kind, or of equal clearness : the most literal of them relating to Christ were not always at the time of delivery the plainest; for many of them, involving the most wonderful events, wanted not the veil or cover of figurative language; for being plainly foretold, they could hardly, from the seeming incredibility of the things themselves, be admitted in their literal meaning. This instanced in the prophecy, a virgin shall conceive a son. Also in the prophe

cies from which the resurrection of Christ is inferred.

We may observe therefore, that the most literal prophecies have received the greatest confirmation and most light from the event; but no event can make a figurative expression to be a plain or a literal one, nor restrain to one determinate sense what was originally capable of many.

Thus much is said to show what sort of clearness and evidence we ought to expect from prophecies after their accomplishment; and that we should not expect from such evidence more than it will yield, but be content with that light and direction which God has thought fit to bestow on us.

It is doubtless a mistake, to suppose that prophecy was intended solely or chiefly for their sakes in whose time the events predicted are to happen: this point enlarged on and explained. If we consider the use of prophecy, this will help us to conceive the degree of clearness which ought to attend it. Some people talk as if they thought the truth of some facts recorded in the gospel depended on the clearness of the prophecies relating to them; and they seem to think that they are confuting the belief of our Saviour's resurrection, when they are trying to confound the prophecies which refer to it but we must be in possession of the fact before we can form any argument from prophecy; and therefore the truth of the resurrection, considered as a fact, is quite independent of the evi

dence or authority of prophecy. The part of unbelievers should be, to show from the prophets that Jesus was necessarily to rise from the dead; and then to prove that in fact he ́never did rise: here would be a plain consequence; but if they do not like this method, they ought to let the prophecies alone.

There are many prophecies in the Old Testament relating to the Babylonish captivity, with the destruction of Jerusalem, and the Temple, &c. Can it be supposed that these prophecies were intended to convince the people of the reality of the events when they should happen? Was there any danger that they should imagine themselves safe in their own country, when they were captives at Babylon, unless they had the evidence of prophecy for their captivity? This point enlarged on. But if it be the case that we must admit all the facts of the gospel to be true, before we can come at the evidence of prophecy, what occasion, it may be said, have we to inquire after prophecy at all? Are not the many miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles sufficient evidence to us of the truth of the gospel, without troubling ourselves to know whether and how these facts were foretold? In answer to this it may be said that such facts, once admitted to be true, are a complete evidence of the divine authority of a revelation. Had we known no more of Christ than that he claimed to be attended to as a person sent by God, he needed no other credentials than those which he showed; and it would have been impertinent to demand what prophet foretold his coming? For in a like case, who foretold the coming of Moses? His authority as a divine lawgiver stands on his miraculous works, and on the wonderful attestations given to him by God; but not on prophecy, since there were no prophecies relating to him: and this shows that prophecy is not essential to the proof of a divine revelation.

But the case of the gospel differs from that of the law; for

though the law was not prophesied of, the gospel was: he who delivered the law was one of the first who prophesied of the gospel, and told the people so long beforehand, that God would raise a prophet like unto him, whom they must hear in all things. Of him also the succeeding prophets speak more fully. Now one of the characters which our Saviour constantly assumes and claims in the gospel is this, that he is the person spoken of by Moses and the prophets. This then is the point to be tried on the evidence of prophecy; viz. whether there be enough plain and clear in the prophecies to show us that Christ is the person foretold under the Old Testament. If there is, we are at the end of our inquiry, and want no farther help from prophecy, especially since we have seen the day dawn, and enjoyed the marvellous light of the gospel of God.

We do not here take into consideration the great advantages that may be made of prophetical evidence for convincing unbelievers of the truth of the gospel: we are only considering how far the truth of the gospel necessarily depends on this kind of evidence. These are two very different inquiries: this point enlarged on.