whereas you may very well conceive it would be more to the purpose of a Christian divine to maintain their clearness. Now as Moses in another case said, I would to God all the Lord's people were prophets;' so say I in this case, I would to God all the prophecies of the Lord were manifest to all his people. But it matters little what we wish for or think best; we must be content with such light and direction as God has thought proper to bestow on us; and to inquire why the ancient prophecies are not clearer, is like inquiring why God has not given us more reason, or made us as wise as angels: he has given us in both cases so much light as he thought proper, and enough to serve the ends he intended.

It is doubtless a mistake to conceive prophecy to be intended solely or chiefly for their sakes in whose time the events predicted are to happen. What great occasion is there to lay in so long beforehand the evidences of prophecy to convince men of things that are to happen in their own times; the truth of which they may if they please learn from their own senses? How low an idea does it give of the administration of Providence, in sending prophets one after another in every age from Adam to Christ, to imagine that all this apparatus was for their sakes who lived in and after the times of Christ, with little regard to the ages to whom the prophecies were delivered? As I think the prophecies of the New Testament are chiefly for our sake, who live by faith and not by sight;' so I imagine the ancient prophecies had the like use, and were chiefly intended to support the faith and religion of the old world. Had it been otherwise, a set of prophecies given some few years before the birth of Christ, would have served our purpose as well as a series of prophecies given from the very beginning, and running through every age.

Let us then consider the use of prophecy, and this will help us to conceive the degree of clearness which ought to attend it. Some people are apt to talk as if they thought the truth of some facts recorded in the gospel depended on the clearness of the prophecies relating to them. They speak, for instance, as if they imagined the certainty and reality of our Saviour's resurrection were much concerned in the clearness of the prophecies relating to that great and wonderful event; and seem

to think that they are confuting the belief of his resurrection, when they are trying to confound the prophecies relating to it. But can any thing be more absurd? For what ground or pretence is there to inquire whether the prophecies, foreshowing that the Messiah should die and rise again, do truly belong to Jesus, unless we are first satisfied that Jesus died and rose again? 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 evidence or authority of prophecy.

The part which unbelievers ought to take in this question, should be to show from the prophets that Jesus was necessarily to rise from the dead, and then to prove that in fact Jesus never did rise: here would be a plain consequence. But if they do not like this method, they ought to let the prophecies alone; for if Jesus did not rise, there is no harm done if the prophets have not foretold it; and if they allow the resurrection of Jesus, what do they gain by discrediting the prophecies? The event will be what it is, let the prophecies be what they will.

There are many prophecies in the Old Testament relating to the Babylonish captivity, and very distinct they are, describing the ruin of the holy city, the destruction of the Temple, the carrying the tribes into a distant country, and the continuance of the captivity for seventy years. Can you suppose these prophecies intended to convince the people of the reality of these events when they should happen? Was there any danger 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? or, that they should think their temple standing in all its glory, when it was ruined before their eyes? If the supposition be absurd in this case, it is so in every case; for the argument from prophecy is in all instances the same. It is plain then that matters related in the gospel do not depend for their reality on the evidence of prophecy; they may be true though never foretold, or very obscurely foretold; nay, they must be admitted as true before we can so much as inquire whether any prophecy belongs to them. But if this 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 have we, you will say, to inquire after prophecy at all? Are not the many miracles of Christ, his resurrection from the dead, his ascension to heaven, the pouring forth the gifts of the Spirit on the Apostles, their speaking with tongues, and doing many wonders in the name of Christ, sufficient evidence to us of the truth of the gospel, without troubling ourselves to know whether these things were foretold, or in what manner they were foretold? To answer this question plainly, I think such facts, once admitted to be true, are a complete evidence of the divine authority of a revelation; and had we known no more of Christ than that he claimed to be attended to as a person sent and commissioned by God, he needed no other credentials than these already mentioned; and it would have been impertinent to demand what prophet foretold his coming. For in a like case, who foretold the coming of Moses to be a lawgiver to Israel? God had promised Abraham to give his posterity the land of Canaan; but that he would give it by Moses he had not promised; that he would talk with him face to face,' and deliver his law to him, and by him to the people, he had not foretold: the authority therefore of Moses as a divine lawgiver stands on the miraculous works performed by him, and the wonderful attestations given to him by the presence of God in the mount in the eyes of all the people; but on prophecy it does not stand, for of him there were no prophecies. This shows that prophecy is not an evidence essential to the proof of a divine revelation; for it may be spared in one as well as another.

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: by which prediction he guarded the people against the prejudice which his own authority was like to create against a new lawgiver; telling them beforehand that when the great prophet came, their obedience ought to be transferred to him. The succeeding prophets speak more fully of the office, character, sufferings, and glory of the Saviour of Israel, and

the desire of all nations. 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. Whether he is this person or no must be tried by the words of prophecy; and this makes the argument from prophecy so far necessary to establish the claim of the gospel; and it has been very justly as well as acutely observed, that the proof of this point must rely intirely on the evidence of prophecy. Miracles in this case can afford no help; if the prophets have not spoken of Christ, all the miracles in the world will not prove that they have spoken of him.*

These considerations show how far the gospel is necessarily concerned in prophetical evidence. Christ has done the works which no man ever did, and given the fullest evidence of a divine commission; but he claims to be the person foretold in the law and the prophets; and as truth must ever be consistent with itself, this claim must be true, or it destroys all others. This is the point then to be tried on the evidence of prophecy : is Christ that person described and foretold under the Old Testament or no? Whether all the prophecies relating to him be plain or not plain; whether all the ways used by the Jews of arguing from the Old Testamant, be convincing to us or no, it matters little the single question is, is there enough plain to show us that Christ is the person foretold under the Old Testament? If there is, we are at an end of our inquiry, and want no farther help from prophecy; especially since we, to use St. Peter's expression, have, in this case, seen the day dawn, and enjoyed the marvellous light of the gospel of God.'

6

I am not now speaking of the great advantage that may be made of prophetical evidence for convincing unbelievers of the truth of the gospel, but am considering how far the truth of the gospel necessarily depends on this kind of evidence. These are two very different inquiries. It is necessary for us to show that Christ is the person promised to be a Saviour to Israel; and when we have shown this, no opposer of the gospel has more to demand. But we may carry our inquiries much farther; we may contemplate all the steps of Providence relating

*Grounds and Reasons, p. 31.

to the salvation and redemption of mankind in the several ages of the world, and by a comparison of all the parts, may discern that Christ was indeed the end of the law, and of all promises made to the fathers: that all the deliverances given by God to his people were but shadows, and as it were an earnest of the great deliverance he intended to give by his Son: that all the ceremonials of the law were representations of the substance of the gospel that the Aaronical sacrifices and priesthood were figures of better things to come. But these inquiries do not stand in the rank of things to be necessarily proved to every believer; they do not enter into the principles of the doctrine of Christ,' as the Apostle to the Hebrews expressly tells us; but belong to those who go on to perfection;' which distinction given by the Apostle in the fifth and sixth chapters to the Hebrews, is well worth considering, as being a key to open the true use of all typical and allegorical applications of Scripture.