FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:1This noble and eminent person was the second son of the Lord Chancellor Hardwicke. He had been, for many years, in the first reputation at the Bar; and having passed through the offices of Sollicitor and Attorney General, was, himself, made Lord Chancellor in January 1770, but died soon after his appointment to that high dignity—Luctuosum hoc suis; acerbum patriæ; grave bonis omnibus.2The Societyhavegiven leave that this Lecture be preached in their Chapel, and on the days specified.3Thus Celsus represents the Jews—μηδὲν πὠποτε ἀξιόλογον πράξαντας, οὔτ’ ἐν λόγῳ, οὔτ’ ἐν ἀριθμῷ αὐτούς ποτε γεγενημένους.Orig.contraCels.l.iv.p.181.ed. Spenc. Cantab. 1677. And inp.175, he represents it as the highest absurdity in suchreptilesto pretend that their insignificant concerns were the objects of divine prediction, and that the supreme Governor of the world, who had so many greater things upon his hands, should be only solicitous, as it were, to keep up a perpetual intercourse with them. See the whole passage, which the philosopher seems to have taken a pleasure to work up with much oratorical amplification.—Julian, too, was much pleased with this foolish objection.4Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the dust of the balance.Isaiah xl. 15.5Si dii sint, est divinatio.6Si divinatio sit, dii sunt.7These objections were long since urged by Celsus, who speaks of the Jewish and Christian oracles, asfanatical, uncertain, and obscure,l.vii.p.338—ἄγνωστα, καὶ πάροιϛρα, καὶ πάντῃ ἄδηλα, ὧν τὸ μὲν γνῶμα οὐδεὶς ἂν ἔχων νοῦν εὑρεῖν δύναιτο, ἀσαφῆ γὰρ καὶ τὸ μηδέν. asapplicable to other subjects besides those to which they were referred—τὰς εἰς τὰ περὶ τούτου ἀναφερομένας προφητείας δύνασθαι καὶ ἄλλοις ἐφαρμόζειν πράγμασι.l.i.p.39.—nay,as much more applicable to others, than to Jesus—μυρίοις ἄλλοις ἐφαρμοσθῆναι δύνασθαι πολὺ πιθανώτερον τὰ προφητικὰ ἢ τῷ Ἰησοῦ.l.ii.p.78.8Utrum tandem, per deos atque homines, magis verisimile est,vesanum remigem, aut aliquem nostrûm, qui ibi tum eramus,me, Catonem, Varronem, Coponiumipsum, concilia deorum immortalium perspicere potuisse?Cic. Div.l. ii. c. 55.9Illud etiam requiro, cur, si deus ista visa nobis providendi causâ dat, nonvigilantibuspotius dat quàmdormientibus? l. ii. c. 61.10Jam verò quid opus estcircuitione et amfractu, ut sit utendum interpretibus somniorum, potiùs quàmdirecto?Ibid.11Οὺκ οἶδ’. ἐφ’ οἷς γὰρ μὴ φρονῶ, σιλᾷν φιλῶ.Soph. Oedip. Tyran. ver. 577.12Quod est enim criminis genus, aut rei esse alicujus ignarum, aut ipsum, quod nescias, sine aliquâ profiteri dissimulatione nescire? aut uter magis videtur irrisione esse dignissimus vobis, qui sibi scientiam nullam tenebrosæ rei alicujus assumit, an ille, qui retur se ex se apertissimè scire id, quod humanam transiliat notionem, et quod sit cæcis obscuritatibus involutum?Arnobius,adv. Gen.l. ii.131 Cor. ii. 11.14St. Matthew, vi. 22.15Μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰησοῦ—the testimony of, or concerning Jesus, not—the testimony given by Jesus.Theformerappears to be the sense, for the following reasons.1. The point asserted, is, “That the Angel, who had delivered this illustrious prophecy, wasthe fellow-servant of John, and not of John only, butof those who have the testimony of Jesus.” The proof is—for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus—i. e. the end of prophecy is to bear testimony, or, to do honour, to Jesus; therefore, I, says the Angel, who am endowed with this prophetic spirit, am but employed, as thou art; who, in thy character of Apostle or Evangelist, hast received the same general commission, namely, to bear testimony, or to do honour, to Jesus. See Acts x. 42. We are, therefore,fellow-servants, or joint labourers in the same cause. All this is clear and well-reasoned. But, now, take the words—the testimony of Jesus—in the sense of—the testimony given by Jesus—and how does the Angel’s havingthe spirit of prophecy, prove him to bea fellow-servant of John? for the reason assigned will then stand thus—for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony which Jesus gives of himself. The inference is, that the Angel was a true prophet. Again: how is the Angel proved, in this way, to bethe fellow-servant of those who have the testimony of Jesus? Why, thus; the Angel had the spirit of prophecy, and prophecy was the gift of Christ; therefore he was the fellow-servant of those, who had the same gift, i. e. who were prophets. Without doubt. But why so strange a way of proving so plain a point? It had been enough to say—I am a prophet, as others are. Still, what was this to St. John? who, in this place, is not sustaining the character of a prophet; for the worship he was inclined to pay the Angel was on account of the Angel’s being, what himself was not,a prophet.Turn it which way you will, the reasoning is frivolous, or inconsequent. I conclude therefore, that notthis, but theotherinterpretation gives the true sense of—the testimony of Jesus.2. To speak ofprophecyunder the idea ofa testimony to, or concerning Jesus, is conforming to the true scriptural idea of that gift. Thus we are told that—to him[i. e. to Jesus]give all the prophets witness—τούτῳ πάντες προφῆται μαρτυροῦσιν, Acts x. 43.Prophecy, therefore, being the thing here spoken of, is rightly called the testimony, or witness to, or concerning Jesus.3. Lastly, the construction is fully justified, 1. by observing that the genitive case [as here Ἰησοῦ] is frequently used in scripture, not actively, but passively. See a variety of instances in Mede, p. 626, where he explains διδασκαλίαι δαιμονίων: And 2. by referring the reader to the following passage of St. Paul, where the very expression of the text is so used—μὴ οὖν ἐπαισχυνθῇς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν—clearly,be not ashamed of bearing testimony to our Lord, 2 Tim. i. 8.—and to Rev. i. 9. where the Apostle tells us, he was in the isle of Patmos—διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριϛοῦ—on account of his having been faithful in preaching the word of God, and in bearing testimony to Jesus Christ—and still more plainly, if possible, and indubitably, by referring him to Rev. xii. 17. where, speaking of the Dragon, he says, he went in wrath to make war on those,which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ—τῶν τηρούντων τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριϛοῦ: for these objects of the Dragon’s fury are properly,THE WITNESSES, those faithful servants of truth, who suffered for the courageous and perseveringtestimony, they gave, in evil times, to Jesus Christ, and to his pure religion.On the whole, there cannot be the least doubt of the interpretation here given of this famous text. Theexpressionfairly admits this interpretation; and (what the true critic will regard most) thescopeof the place, or pertinence of the reasoning, addressed to St. John, admits no other.16John v. 39.17Luke xxiv. 27.18Acts iii. 18.19Acts iii. 24. See also Acts x. 43. 1 Pet. i. 10.20See especially the Epistles to theHebrews, andGalatians.21Acts xxvi. 22. See farther, Acts xxviii. 23. Rom. iii. 21. Eph. ii. 19, &c.22Rev. x. 7.23Dr. Middleton’sWorks, vol. III. p. 137. London, 1752, 4to.24Though byMoses, is here meant, not the prophecies of Moses only, but thebooksof Moses, containing those former prophecies, which, as St. Peter says, had been delivered,since the world began.25Dr. Middleton, p. 139.26D. L. Vol. V. p. 288. Lond. 1765.27Gal. iii. 24.—ὁ νόμος παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριϛόν—28Coloss. ii. 17. Hence, St. Austin affirms roundly, “That, to such as consider the genius of the revealed system, the Old Testament must appear a continued prophecy of the New.”—Vetus Testamentum, rectèsentientibus,PROPHETIAest Novi Testamenti[contr. Faustum, l. xv.]: and St. Jerom speaks of it as a generally-received maxim, “That it is the manner of sacred scripture, to deliver, beforehand, the truth of futurity, in types”—hunc esse morem scripturæ sanctæ ut futurorum veritatem præmittat, inTYPIS[Hieron. T. III. 1127.]—I know, that the ancient Fathers, and from them many moderns, have exposed themselves to much and deserved censure, by pursuing this principle too minutely and superstitiously, in their mystical and allegorical comments on the Jewish scriptures. But men of sense will consider, that a principle is not therefore to be rejected, because it has been abused. For instance, that the Passover was instituted with a reference to the sacrifice of Christ, that the paschal Lamb was, in the language of St. Austin, aprophecy, or, in that of St. Jerom, atype, of the lamb of God, will seem highly credible to one who considers the aptness of the correspondence in two related parts of the same system: But, that the famous Law in Deuteronomy, concerning the marriage of a brother’s widow, wasprophetic, ortypicalof the duty, incumbent on the ministers of the Gospel, to espouse the widowed church of Christ, is certainly much less clear, and will scarcely be admitted even on the authority of St. Austin.—Hoc ipsum—quod uxorem fratris ad hoc frater jussus est ducere, ut non sibi, sed illi sobolem suscitaret, ejusque vocaret nomine, quod inde nasceretur: quid aliudin figurâ præmonstrat, nisi quia unusquisque Evangelii prædicator ita debet in Ecclesiâ laborare, ut defuncto fratri, hoc est Christo, suscitet semen, qui pro nobis mortuus est, et quod suscitatum fuerit, ejus nomen accipiat?Contr. Faustum, l. 32.—St. Austin might, perhaps, say for himself, that he had an example of this practice in the mystical comments of St. Paul: it may be so: but anexample, followed without warrant, in this instance, by the learned Father, and, not improbably, ill understood by him.29Adv. of Learning, B. II.30Dr. Middleton,Works, vol. III. p. 177.London, 1752, 4to.31Dr. Middleton, vol. III. p. 177.32See further on this subject, D. L. vol. V. p. 290.33QuandUN SEUL HOMMEauroit fait un livre des prédictions de Jesus Christ pour le tems et pour la maniere, et que Jesus Christ seroit venu conformément à ces propheties, ce seroit une force infinie. Mais il y a bien plus ici. C’est uneSUITE D’HOMMESdurant quatre mille ans, qui constamment & sans variation viennent l’un ensuite de l’autre prédire ce même avénement. C’estUN PEUPLE TOUT ENTIERqui l’annonce, et qui subsiste pendant quatre mille années, pour rendreEN CORPStémoignage des assurances qu’ils en ont, & dont ils ne peuvent être detournés par quelques menaces et quelque persecution qu’on leur fasse:CECI EST TOUT AUTREMENT CONSIDERABLE.Pascal.34See the passage before referred to in Serm. I. p. 6.35Daniel, c. ii.36Est autem Quaternio iste regnorum Danielis (quod imprimis observari velim)CHRONOLOGIA QUÆDAM PROPHETICA, non tam annorum quàm regnorum intervallis distincta, ubi regnorum in præcipuâ orbis terrarum parte, simul ecclesiam et populum Dei complexâ, sibi invicem succedentium serie, monstratur tempus quo Christi regnum à tot seculis promissum et primùm inchoandum sit, idemque demum certis temporibus consummandum.—Ex his, quæ dicta sunt, ratio elucet, quare, ex omnibus mundi regnis, quatuor hæc sola selegit Spiritus sanctus, quorum fata tam insigni ornaret prophetiâ; nempe quia ex his solis inter omnia mundi regna periodus temporum ejusmodi contexi potuit, qua rectâ serie et ordinatâ successione perduceret ad tempora et momenta regni Christi. Non verò quia nulla istis paria imperia, forsan et aliquibus majora, per omnia secula orbis visurus esset. Nam neque Saracenorum olím, neque hodie Turcarum, neque Tartarorum regna ditionis amplitudine Persico aut Græco, puto nec Assyrio, quicquam concedunt; imò, ni fallor, excedunt.Mede’sWorks, B. III. p. 712. Lond. 1672.37To this purpose the late learned and ingenious author of theDiscourses on Prophecy—“A figurative and dark description of a future event will be figurative and dark still, when the event happens.” And again—“No event can make a figurative or metaphorical expression to be a plain or literal one.” Bishop Sherlock,Disc.II. p. 32 and 36. London, 1749.38Le dessein de Dieu est plus de perfectionner la volonté, que l’esprit. Or, la clarté parfaite ne serviroit qu’à l’esprit, & nuiroit à la volonté. Pascal.39Rom. iv. 17.40Ταῦτα ὁ Θεὸς προεμήνυσε διὰ τοῦ προφητικοῦ πνεύματος μέλλειν γίνεσθαι, ἵν’, ὅταν γένηται, μὴ ἀπιϛηθῇ, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ προειρῆσθαι πιϛευθῇ.J. Martyr,Apol.I. c. 74.41Yet hear in how decisive a tone a certain writer, of no small account with the infidel party, reprobates this argument:—“Je dis de plus, qu’aucune prophétie ne sauroit faire autorité pour moi.” [Rousseau, Œuvres, T. III. p. 156. La Haye, 1762.] “I say,” says Mr. Rousseau, “that the argument from prophecy can have no weight with me.” If you ask his reason, it follows. “Because, to give it any authority, three conditions are required, the concurrence of which is impossible. First, I must have been, myself, a witness of the prophecy, when delivered. Secondly, I must have been, myself; a witness of the event: And lastly, I must have it demonstrated to me that the agreement between the prophecy and the event could not have been fortuitous. For though the prophecy were clearer, and more precise, than a geometrical axiom, yet as the clearness of a prediction, made at hazard, does not render the accomplishment of it impossible, this accomplishment, allowing it to take place, proves nothing, strictly speaking, in favour of the person who foretold it.”First, he says,He must himself have been a witness of the prophecy. But why so? Is there no way of being reasonably assured that a prophecy has been delivered, unless one has been actually present at the delivery of it? Does any one doubt, whether Socrates told his friend that he should die within three days’ time, because he did not hear these words from the mouth of the philosopher? But, there is less reason still to doubt whether Jesus uttered the prophecies, ascribed to him in the Gospel.Next,He must have been, himself, a witness of the event. With just as good reason, as of the prophecy. However, it so happens that we are, or may be, if we please, witnesses of the events, foretold in many prophecies. What does he think of the dispersion of the Jews, for instance? Is he not a witness of this event?But lastly,He must have it demonstrated to him that the agreement between the prophecy and the event could not have been fortuitous. What, will nothing less thandemonstrationsatisfy him? Will not a high degree of probability serve him to form a conclusion upon, nay, and to regulate his conduct? And will he stand out against the strongest degree of evidence, short of mathematical, or a proofà la rigueur, as he terms it, in a subject, where, from the nature of it, mathematical certainty is not to be had?Surely one needs be no great philosopher to see that all which is wanting to give authority to the argument from prophecy, is, That we havereasonto admit the delivery of a prediction—that we havereasonto admit the completion of it—and that we have reason to think the agreement between the prediction and the event not fortuitous. And where is the impossibility that these three reasons should concur?—It is plain that the only one of these three reasons that appears in any degree problematical is the last concerning the completion of a prophecy in its event, whether it be fortuitous or not. Have I not reason then to say, as I do below p. 81, 82, that the strength of the infidel cause lies in this last consideration?—But what that strength is, we shall see as we go along.42Socrates foretold that he shoulddye within three days: and the event followed.—Est apud Platonem Socrates, cùm esset in custodiâ publicâ, dicens Critoni suo familiari, sibi post tertium diem esse moriendum—quod, ut est dictum, sic scribitur contigisse[Cic. de Div. l. i. c. 25.] Jesus foretold that he should suffer death bycrucifixion. [John iii. 14. viii. 28. xii. 32.] He, likewise, foretold that he shouldrise from the dead, withinthree daysafter his crucifixion. [John ii. 19. Matth. xii. 39, 40.]—Thefirstof these predictions might be a sagacious conjecture. Can it be said of such, as thetwo last,—Augurium, ratio est, et conjectura futuri?Ovid. Trist. l. I. viii. 51.43Hoc si est in libris, inquem hominem, et inquod tempusest? Callidè enim, qui illa composuit, perfecit, ut, quodcunque accidisset, prædictum videretur,hominum et temporum definitione sublatâ—said, in discredit of the Sibylline oracles [De Div.l. ii. p. 295.fol. Lutet.1565]: how far applicable to the scriptural prophecies, will be seen in its place.44Διὰ τὸ ὅλως εἶναι ἁμάρτημα ἔλαττον, διὰ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ πράγματος λέγουσιν οἱ μάντεις. And again—οἱ χρησμολόγοι, οὐ προσορίζονται πότε. Aristot. Rhet. l. iii. c. v.45Permultorum exemplorum et nostra plena est respublica, et omnia regna, omnesque populi, cunctæque gentes, augurum prædictis multa incredibiliter vera cecidisse.Cic. de Leg.l. ii. p. 337.46Certabant, urbem Romam, Remoramne vocarent.Omnibu’ cura viris, uter esset induperator.Cedunt de cœlo ter quatuor corpora sanctaAvium, præpetibus sese, pulchrisque locis dant.Conspicit inde sibi data Romulus esse priora,Auspicio regni stabilita scamna solumque.Cic. de Div.l. i. c. 48.47Quot sæcula urbi Romæ debeantur, dicere meum non est: sed, quid apud Varronem legerim, non tacebo. Qui libro Antiquitatum duodevicesimo ait, fuisse Vettium Romæ in augurio non ignobilem, ingenio magno, cuivis docto in disceptando parem; eum se audisse dicentem: Si ita esset, ut traderent historici, de Romuli urbis condendæ auguriis, acduodecim vulturibus; quoniamCXXannos incolumis præteriisset populus Romanus, admille et ducentosperventurum.Censorinusde die natali, c. xvii. p. 97. Cantab. 1695.48Hence Sidonius, in personating the city of Rome, makes her ask—Quid, rogo,bis senomihivultureThuscus aruspexPortendit?Sidon. Carm. vii. 55.And again, addressing himself to the same city,Jam propè fatatui bissenas vulturis alasComplebant (scis namque tuos, scis,Roma, labores.)Ib. ver. 358.And, before him, Claudian, to the same purpose—Tunc reputant annos,interceptoque volatuVulturis, incidunt properatis sæcula metis.B. G. ver. 262.49Medea, ver. 374.50Annis seris.51Ferdinand.52Casu, inquis. Itáne verò quicquam potest essecasufactum, quod omnes habet in se numeros veritatis? Quatuor tali jacti,casuVenereum efficiunt. Num etiam centum Venereos, siCCCCtalos jeceris,casufuturos putas?De Div.l. i. p. 259, Lutet. 1565.—Had the supposed case been fairly applied to the subject, there had been an end of the dispute; as may appear from the pitiful answer, made in the next book to this reasoning—dixisti multa decasu: ut, Venereum jaci posse casu, quatuor talis jactis; quadringentis, centum Venereos non posse casu consistere. Primùm,NESCIO, CUR NON POSSINT.—Was this, like a philosopher?53Multa vera, inquit, evadere. Quid, quòd multo plura, falsa? Nónne ipsa varietas, quæ est propria fortunæ, fortunam esse causam, non naturam, docet?De Div.l. ii. p. 295. This, methinks, looks like sense.54See the ancient apologists, who are frequent and large on this subject; and, of the moderns, see especially HuetiiDem. Evang. Prop.IX.—Bishop Kidder’sDem. of the Messias, c. ii. p. 17, 18. London, 1726, fol.—Dr. Clarke’sEvidences of Nat. and Rev. Religion.—Pensées de M. Pascal, p. 108.55I take these examples to be more in point, than those given by Bishop Butler in hisAnalogy, P. II c. vii. p. 386. Lond. 1740: not but those, too, have their weight.56Grotius.57Serm. II.58Ἀπ’ αἰῶνος. Luke i. 70.59This use and intent of prophecy was seen, and admirably expressed, by the greatM. Pascal—“Les propheties sont mêlées de propheties particulieres, et de celles du Messie, afin que les propheties du Messie ne fussent pas sanspreuves, et que les propheties particulieres ne fussent pas sansfruit.”Pensées, p. 112.60The Lord himself shall give you a sign, Isai. vii. 14.—ThisSIGN(and the extraordinary introduction of it, in the words quoted, indicates no less) had plainly a recondite and even complicated meaning!1. As addressed toAhaz, it was simply anASSURANCE, that his deliverance from his two great enemies was now at hand.2. As addressed to thehouse of David—Hear ye now, O house of David—it was aTYPEof Christ.3. It was, farther, aTOKEN, or pledge, that the remote deliverance of the house of David by Immanuel, should hereafter take place, just as the approaching deliverance of Ahaz, by the prophet’s Son, would be seen to do.4. This sign, when fulfilled in the near event, would, thenceforward, become aPROOF, or evidence, that it would be fulfilled in the remote one.5. Lastly, in the Antitype, the sign was aMIRACLE, properly so called.So eminently was this Child, aSIGN! Asign, in all thesensesof the word, as employed by the Jewish prophets; and to all thepurposes, for which signs were given.61Ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν τὰ γενόμενα ἤδη πάντα ἀποδείκνυμεν, πρὶν ἢ γενέσθαι, προκεκηρύχθαι διὰ τῶν προφητῶν, ἀνάγκη καὶ περὶ τῶν ὁμοίως προφητευθέντων, μελλόντων δὲ γίνεσθαι, πίϛιν ἔχειν ὡς πάντως γενησομένων.Justin Martyr,Apol.i. c. 87.62Isaiah vii. 16. Daniel ix. 24.63Mal. iv. 5. Luke xvi. 16.64Joel ii. 28, 29.65Is not their case exactly delineated by the prophet Ezekiel—Mischief shall come upon mischief, and rumour shall be upon rumour; then shall theySEEK A VISION OF THE PROPHET; i. e. they shall seek what they shall not find,for theLAWshall perish from the priest, andCOUNCILfrom the ancients; i. e. their ecclesiastical and civil polity, to which prophecy was annexed, shall be utterly abolished. See Ezekiel vii. 26. and compare Isaiah iii. 1, 2.66SeeA. Van Dale,de Oraculorum ethnicorum duratione atque interitu.67The sacred text says—myriads—θεωρεῖς, ἀδελφὲ, πόσαι μυριάδες εἶσιν Ἰουδαίων τῶν πεπιϛευκότων—Acts xxi. 20.68Acts x.69Acts xiii. 42. 48.70Τίνι γὰρ ἂν λόγῳ ἀνθρώπῳ ϛαυρωθέντι ἐπειθόμεθα, ὅτι πρωτότοκος τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ ἐϛι, καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν κρίσιν τοῦ παντὸς ἀνθρωπείου γένους ποιήσεται, εἰ μὴ μαρτύρια, πρὶν ἐλθεῖν αὐτὸν ἄνθρωπον γενόμενον, κεκηρυγμένα περὶ αὐτοῦ εὕρομεν, καὶ οὕτως γενόμενα ὁρῶμεν;Justin Martyr,Apol.i. c. 88.71Acts xv. 18.72Isaiah xl. 21.73We see this design very plainly, in the prophecies of Jesus concerninghis own death and resurrection; concerningthe descent of the holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost; concerningevents, that were to befall his disciples; and in other instances.74La plus grande des preuves de Jesus Christ, ce sont les propheties. C’est aussi à quoi Dieu a la plus pourvû; car l’evenement, qui les a remplies, est unMIRACLE SUBSISTANTdepuis la naissance de l’Eglise jusqu’ à la fin.M. Pascal.75For these particulars, see Dr. Jortin’sRem. on Ecclesiastical History, vol. I. p. 20-89.76An event, it must be owned, the more likely to happen, as the Jews had always been disposed totrust to their high and fenced walls; which yet could never defend them from their enemies, as their history shews, and, as Moses had distinctly foretold,Deut.xxviii. 52.77Matth. xxiv. 28. and compare Luke xvii. 37. Ὅπου γὰρ ἐὰν ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα, ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί.—Meaning byeagles, the standards of the Roman army.—Some writers of name have, indeed, observed, that this is only aproverbialexpression. True: but proverbial prophecies are often fulfilled in the strict literal sense of the expression; as Grotius well observes on Matth. xxvi. 23. hîc quoque accidit, quod inmultis aliis vaticiniis, ut verba—non tantùm secundùm proverbialem loquendi modum, sed etiam secundùmexactissimam verborum significationemimplerentur.—If the reader calls to mind the prediction of our Lord, as it is elsewhere expressed, without a figure—when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed withARMIES[Luke, xxi. 20]—and compares it with theevent, he will hardly make a doubt whethereagles, in those figurative predictions, which respect the same subject, namely, the destruction of Jerusalem, were not intended by our Lord to denote, theRomanarmies.78—debellaresuperbos. Virg.79Assuredly this prophecy was not in the number of those, of which it hath been said—The prophecy is not occasioned by the event, but the event by the prophecy—L’evenement n’est pas predit parcequ’il arrivera; mais il arrive parcequ’il a été predit.Rousseau,Nouv. Hel.t. iv. p. 314. n. Neuf. 1764.80Matth. xvi. 28.81Matth. xxiv. 34.82Luke xxi. 20.83Luke xxi. 18. Acts ii. 21. Mark xiii. 20.84See the learned Bishop Newton’sDissertations on the Prophecies, vol. ii, p. 268. n.85Deut. xxviii.861 Thess. ii. 16.87Luke xxi. 22. 24.88Rom. xi. 25.89Jer. xlvi. 28.90Isai. i. 21. Ezek. vi. 8.91Lev. xxvi. 44.92Hear the profound and reflecting M. Pascal—L’etat où l’on voit les Juifs est une grande preuve de la Religion. Car c’est une chose étonnante de voir ce peuplesubsisterdepuis tant d’années, & de le voirtoujours miserable—et, quoique il soit contraire,D’ETRE MISERABLE, & DE SUBSISTER, il subsiste neanmoins toujours malgré sa misère.Pensees, p. 115.93—Multò minus nomen criminandum, in captivitate sacratorum suorum, qui supernam patriam veraci fide expectantes,etiam in suis sedibus peregrinos se esse noverunt.Aug. De Civ. Dei, l. i. 15.94Jer. xlvi. 28.95Ps. ii. 8.96Mal. i. 2.97Is. xlix. 6.

1This noble and eminent person was the second son of the Lord Chancellor Hardwicke. He had been, for many years, in the first reputation at the Bar; and having passed through the offices of Sollicitor and Attorney General, was, himself, made Lord Chancellor in January 1770, but died soon after his appointment to that high dignity—Luctuosum hoc suis; acerbum patriæ; grave bonis omnibus.

2The Societyhavegiven leave that this Lecture be preached in their Chapel, and on the days specified.

3Thus Celsus represents the Jews—μηδὲν πὠποτε ἀξιόλογον πράξαντας, οὔτ’ ἐν λόγῳ, οὔτ’ ἐν ἀριθμῷ αὐτούς ποτε γεγενημένους.Orig.contraCels.l.iv.p.181.ed. Spenc. Cantab. 1677. And inp.175, he represents it as the highest absurdity in suchreptilesto pretend that their insignificant concerns were the objects of divine prediction, and that the supreme Governor of the world, who had so many greater things upon his hands, should be only solicitous, as it were, to keep up a perpetual intercourse with them. See the whole passage, which the philosopher seems to have taken a pleasure to work up with much oratorical amplification.—Julian, too, was much pleased with this foolish objection.

4Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the dust of the balance.Isaiah xl. 15.

5Si dii sint, est divinatio.

6Si divinatio sit, dii sunt.

7These objections were long since urged by Celsus, who speaks of the Jewish and Christian oracles, asfanatical, uncertain, and obscure,l.vii.p.338—ἄγνωστα, καὶ πάροιϛρα, καὶ πάντῃ ἄδηλα, ὧν τὸ μὲν γνῶμα οὐδεὶς ἂν ἔχων νοῦν εὑρεῖν δύναιτο, ἀσαφῆ γὰρ καὶ τὸ μηδέν. asapplicable to other subjects besides those to which they were referred—τὰς εἰς τὰ περὶ τούτου ἀναφερομένας προφητείας δύνασθαι καὶ ἄλλοις ἐφαρμόζειν πράγμασι.l.i.p.39.—nay,as much more applicable to others, than to Jesus—μυρίοις ἄλλοις ἐφαρμοσθῆναι δύνασθαι πολὺ πιθανώτερον τὰ προφητικὰ ἢ τῷ Ἰησοῦ.l.ii.p.78.

8Utrum tandem, per deos atque homines, magis verisimile est,vesanum remigem, aut aliquem nostrûm, qui ibi tum eramus,me, Catonem, Varronem, Coponiumipsum, concilia deorum immortalium perspicere potuisse?Cic. Div.l. ii. c. 55.

9Illud etiam requiro, cur, si deus ista visa nobis providendi causâ dat, nonvigilantibuspotius dat quàmdormientibus? l. ii. c. 61.

10Jam verò quid opus estcircuitione et amfractu, ut sit utendum interpretibus somniorum, potiùs quàmdirecto?Ibid.

11Οὺκ οἶδ’. ἐφ’ οἷς γὰρ μὴ φρονῶ, σιλᾷν φιλῶ.Soph. Oedip. Tyran. ver. 577.

Οὺκ οἶδ’. ἐφ’ οἷς γὰρ μὴ φρονῶ, σιλᾷν φιλῶ.Soph. Oedip. Tyran. ver. 577.

12Quod est enim criminis genus, aut rei esse alicujus ignarum, aut ipsum, quod nescias, sine aliquâ profiteri dissimulatione nescire? aut uter magis videtur irrisione esse dignissimus vobis, qui sibi scientiam nullam tenebrosæ rei alicujus assumit, an ille, qui retur se ex se apertissimè scire id, quod humanam transiliat notionem, et quod sit cæcis obscuritatibus involutum?Arnobius,adv. Gen.l. ii.

131 Cor. ii. 11.

14St. Matthew, vi. 22.

15Μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰησοῦ—the testimony of, or concerning Jesus, not—the testimony given by Jesus.Theformerappears to be the sense, for the following reasons.1. The point asserted, is, “That the Angel, who had delivered this illustrious prophecy, wasthe fellow-servant of John, and not of John only, butof those who have the testimony of Jesus.” The proof is—for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus—i. e. the end of prophecy is to bear testimony, or, to do honour, to Jesus; therefore, I, says the Angel, who am endowed with this prophetic spirit, am but employed, as thou art; who, in thy character of Apostle or Evangelist, hast received the same general commission, namely, to bear testimony, or to do honour, to Jesus. See Acts x. 42. We are, therefore,fellow-servants, or joint labourers in the same cause. All this is clear and well-reasoned. But, now, take the words—the testimony of Jesus—in the sense of—the testimony given by Jesus—and how does the Angel’s havingthe spirit of prophecy, prove him to bea fellow-servant of John? for the reason assigned will then stand thus—for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony which Jesus gives of himself. The inference is, that the Angel was a true prophet. Again: how is the Angel proved, in this way, to bethe fellow-servant of those who have the testimony of Jesus? Why, thus; the Angel had the spirit of prophecy, and prophecy was the gift of Christ; therefore he was the fellow-servant of those, who had the same gift, i. e. who were prophets. Without doubt. But why so strange a way of proving so plain a point? It had been enough to say—I am a prophet, as others are. Still, what was this to St. John? who, in this place, is not sustaining the character of a prophet; for the worship he was inclined to pay the Angel was on account of the Angel’s being, what himself was not,a prophet.Turn it which way you will, the reasoning is frivolous, or inconsequent. I conclude therefore, that notthis, but theotherinterpretation gives the true sense of—the testimony of Jesus.2. To speak ofprophecyunder the idea ofa testimony to, or concerning Jesus, is conforming to the true scriptural idea of that gift. Thus we are told that—to him[i. e. to Jesus]give all the prophets witness—τούτῳ πάντες προφῆται μαρτυροῦσιν, Acts x. 43.Prophecy, therefore, being the thing here spoken of, is rightly called the testimony, or witness to, or concerning Jesus.3. Lastly, the construction is fully justified, 1. by observing that the genitive case [as here Ἰησοῦ] is frequently used in scripture, not actively, but passively. See a variety of instances in Mede, p. 626, where he explains διδασκαλίαι δαιμονίων: And 2. by referring the reader to the following passage of St. Paul, where the very expression of the text is so used—μὴ οὖν ἐπαισχυνθῇς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν—clearly,be not ashamed of bearing testimony to our Lord, 2 Tim. i. 8.—and to Rev. i. 9. where the Apostle tells us, he was in the isle of Patmos—διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριϛοῦ—on account of his having been faithful in preaching the word of God, and in bearing testimony to Jesus Christ—and still more plainly, if possible, and indubitably, by referring him to Rev. xii. 17. where, speaking of the Dragon, he says, he went in wrath to make war on those,which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ—τῶν τηρούντων τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριϛοῦ: for these objects of the Dragon’s fury are properly,THE WITNESSES, those faithful servants of truth, who suffered for the courageous and perseveringtestimony, they gave, in evil times, to Jesus Christ, and to his pure religion.On the whole, there cannot be the least doubt of the interpretation here given of this famous text. Theexpressionfairly admits this interpretation; and (what the true critic will regard most) thescopeof the place, or pertinence of the reasoning, addressed to St. John, admits no other.

15Μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰησοῦ—the testimony of, or concerning Jesus, not—the testimony given by Jesus.

Theformerappears to be the sense, for the following reasons.

1. The point asserted, is, “That the Angel, who had delivered this illustrious prophecy, wasthe fellow-servant of John, and not of John only, butof those who have the testimony of Jesus.” The proof is—for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus—i. e. the end of prophecy is to bear testimony, or, to do honour, to Jesus; therefore, I, says the Angel, who am endowed with this prophetic spirit, am but employed, as thou art; who, in thy character of Apostle or Evangelist, hast received the same general commission, namely, to bear testimony, or to do honour, to Jesus. See Acts x. 42. We are, therefore,fellow-servants, or joint labourers in the same cause. All this is clear and well-reasoned. But, now, take the words—the testimony of Jesus—in the sense of—the testimony given by Jesus—and how does the Angel’s havingthe spirit of prophecy, prove him to bea fellow-servant of John? for the reason assigned will then stand thus—for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony which Jesus gives of himself. The inference is, that the Angel was a true prophet. Again: how is the Angel proved, in this way, to bethe fellow-servant of those who have the testimony of Jesus? Why, thus; the Angel had the spirit of prophecy, and prophecy was the gift of Christ; therefore he was the fellow-servant of those, who had the same gift, i. e. who were prophets. Without doubt. But why so strange a way of proving so plain a point? It had been enough to say—I am a prophet, as others are. Still, what was this to St. John? who, in this place, is not sustaining the character of a prophet; for the worship he was inclined to pay the Angel was on account of the Angel’s being, what himself was not,a prophet.

Turn it which way you will, the reasoning is frivolous, or inconsequent. I conclude therefore, that notthis, but theotherinterpretation gives the true sense of—the testimony of Jesus.

2. To speak ofprophecyunder the idea ofa testimony to, or concerning Jesus, is conforming to the true scriptural idea of that gift. Thus we are told that—to him[i. e. to Jesus]give all the prophets witness—τούτῳ πάντες προφῆται μαρτυροῦσιν, Acts x. 43.Prophecy, therefore, being the thing here spoken of, is rightly called the testimony, or witness to, or concerning Jesus.

3. Lastly, the construction is fully justified, 1. by observing that the genitive case [as here Ἰησοῦ] is frequently used in scripture, not actively, but passively. See a variety of instances in Mede, p. 626, where he explains διδασκαλίαι δαιμονίων: And 2. by referring the reader to the following passage of St. Paul, where the very expression of the text is so used—μὴ οὖν ἐπαισχυνθῇς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν—clearly,be not ashamed of bearing testimony to our Lord, 2 Tim. i. 8.—and to Rev. i. 9. where the Apostle tells us, he was in the isle of Patmos—διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριϛοῦ—on account of his having been faithful in preaching the word of God, and in bearing testimony to Jesus Christ—and still more plainly, if possible, and indubitably, by referring him to Rev. xii. 17. where, speaking of the Dragon, he says, he went in wrath to make war on those,which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ—τῶν τηρούντων τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριϛοῦ: for these objects of the Dragon’s fury are properly,THE WITNESSES, those faithful servants of truth, who suffered for the courageous and perseveringtestimony, they gave, in evil times, to Jesus Christ, and to his pure religion.

On the whole, there cannot be the least doubt of the interpretation here given of this famous text. Theexpressionfairly admits this interpretation; and (what the true critic will regard most) thescopeof the place, or pertinence of the reasoning, addressed to St. John, admits no other.

16John v. 39.

17Luke xxiv. 27.

18Acts iii. 18.

19Acts iii. 24. See also Acts x. 43. 1 Pet. i. 10.

20See especially the Epistles to theHebrews, andGalatians.

21Acts xxvi. 22. See farther, Acts xxviii. 23. Rom. iii. 21. Eph. ii. 19, &c.

22Rev. x. 7.

23Dr. Middleton’sWorks, vol. III. p. 137. London, 1752, 4to.

24Though byMoses, is here meant, not the prophecies of Moses only, but thebooksof Moses, containing those former prophecies, which, as St. Peter says, had been delivered,since the world began.

25Dr. Middleton, p. 139.

26D. L. Vol. V. p. 288. Lond. 1765.

27Gal. iii. 24.—ὁ νόμος παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριϛόν—

28Coloss. ii. 17. Hence, St. Austin affirms roundly, “That, to such as consider the genius of the revealed system, the Old Testament must appear a continued prophecy of the New.”—Vetus Testamentum, rectèsentientibus,PROPHETIAest Novi Testamenti[contr. Faustum, l. xv.]: and St. Jerom speaks of it as a generally-received maxim, “That it is the manner of sacred scripture, to deliver, beforehand, the truth of futurity, in types”—hunc esse morem scripturæ sanctæ ut futurorum veritatem præmittat, inTYPIS[Hieron. T. III. 1127.]—I know, that the ancient Fathers, and from them many moderns, have exposed themselves to much and deserved censure, by pursuing this principle too minutely and superstitiously, in their mystical and allegorical comments on the Jewish scriptures. But men of sense will consider, that a principle is not therefore to be rejected, because it has been abused. For instance, that the Passover was instituted with a reference to the sacrifice of Christ, that the paschal Lamb was, in the language of St. Austin, aprophecy, or, in that of St. Jerom, atype, of the lamb of God, will seem highly credible to one who considers the aptness of the correspondence in two related parts of the same system: But, that the famous Law in Deuteronomy, concerning the marriage of a brother’s widow, wasprophetic, ortypicalof the duty, incumbent on the ministers of the Gospel, to espouse the widowed church of Christ, is certainly much less clear, and will scarcely be admitted even on the authority of St. Austin.—Hoc ipsum—quod uxorem fratris ad hoc frater jussus est ducere, ut non sibi, sed illi sobolem suscitaret, ejusque vocaret nomine, quod inde nasceretur: quid aliudin figurâ præmonstrat, nisi quia unusquisque Evangelii prædicator ita debet in Ecclesiâ laborare, ut defuncto fratri, hoc est Christo, suscitet semen, qui pro nobis mortuus est, et quod suscitatum fuerit, ejus nomen accipiat?Contr. Faustum, l. 32.—St. Austin might, perhaps, say for himself, that he had an example of this practice in the mystical comments of St. Paul: it may be so: but anexample, followed without warrant, in this instance, by the learned Father, and, not improbably, ill understood by him.

29Adv. of Learning, B. II.

30Dr. Middleton,Works, vol. III. p. 177.London, 1752, 4to.

31Dr. Middleton, vol. III. p. 177.

32See further on this subject, D. L. vol. V. p. 290.

33QuandUN SEUL HOMMEauroit fait un livre des prédictions de Jesus Christ pour le tems et pour la maniere, et que Jesus Christ seroit venu conformément à ces propheties, ce seroit une force infinie. Mais il y a bien plus ici. C’est uneSUITE D’HOMMESdurant quatre mille ans, qui constamment & sans variation viennent l’un ensuite de l’autre prédire ce même avénement. C’estUN PEUPLE TOUT ENTIERqui l’annonce, et qui subsiste pendant quatre mille années, pour rendreEN CORPStémoignage des assurances qu’ils en ont, & dont ils ne peuvent être detournés par quelques menaces et quelque persecution qu’on leur fasse:CECI EST TOUT AUTREMENT CONSIDERABLE.Pascal.

34See the passage before referred to in Serm. I. p. 6.

35Daniel, c. ii.

36Est autem Quaternio iste regnorum Danielis (quod imprimis observari velim)CHRONOLOGIA QUÆDAM PROPHETICA, non tam annorum quàm regnorum intervallis distincta, ubi regnorum in præcipuâ orbis terrarum parte, simul ecclesiam et populum Dei complexâ, sibi invicem succedentium serie, monstratur tempus quo Christi regnum à tot seculis promissum et primùm inchoandum sit, idemque demum certis temporibus consummandum.—Ex his, quæ dicta sunt, ratio elucet, quare, ex omnibus mundi regnis, quatuor hæc sola selegit Spiritus sanctus, quorum fata tam insigni ornaret prophetiâ; nempe quia ex his solis inter omnia mundi regna periodus temporum ejusmodi contexi potuit, qua rectâ serie et ordinatâ successione perduceret ad tempora et momenta regni Christi. Non verò quia nulla istis paria imperia, forsan et aliquibus majora, per omnia secula orbis visurus esset. Nam neque Saracenorum olím, neque hodie Turcarum, neque Tartarorum regna ditionis amplitudine Persico aut Græco, puto nec Assyrio, quicquam concedunt; imò, ni fallor, excedunt.Mede’sWorks, B. III. p. 712. Lond. 1672.

—Ex his, quæ dicta sunt, ratio elucet, quare, ex omnibus mundi regnis, quatuor hæc sola selegit Spiritus sanctus, quorum fata tam insigni ornaret prophetiâ; nempe quia ex his solis inter omnia mundi regna periodus temporum ejusmodi contexi potuit, qua rectâ serie et ordinatâ successione perduceret ad tempora et momenta regni Christi. Non verò quia nulla istis paria imperia, forsan et aliquibus majora, per omnia secula orbis visurus esset. Nam neque Saracenorum olím, neque hodie Turcarum, neque Tartarorum regna ditionis amplitudine Persico aut Græco, puto nec Assyrio, quicquam concedunt; imò, ni fallor, excedunt.Mede’sWorks, B. III. p. 712. Lond. 1672.

37To this purpose the late learned and ingenious author of theDiscourses on Prophecy—“A figurative and dark description of a future event will be figurative and dark still, when the event happens.” And again—“No event can make a figurative or metaphorical expression to be a plain or literal one.” Bishop Sherlock,Disc.II. p. 32 and 36. London, 1749.

38Le dessein de Dieu est plus de perfectionner la volonté, que l’esprit. Or, la clarté parfaite ne serviroit qu’à l’esprit, & nuiroit à la volonté. Pascal.

39Rom. iv. 17.

40Ταῦτα ὁ Θεὸς προεμήνυσε διὰ τοῦ προφητικοῦ πνεύματος μέλλειν γίνεσθαι, ἵν’, ὅταν γένηται, μὴ ἀπιϛηθῇ, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ προειρῆσθαι πιϛευθῇ.J. Martyr,Apol.I. c. 74.

41Yet hear in how decisive a tone a certain writer, of no small account with the infidel party, reprobates this argument:—“Je dis de plus, qu’aucune prophétie ne sauroit faire autorité pour moi.” [Rousseau, Œuvres, T. III. p. 156. La Haye, 1762.] “I say,” says Mr. Rousseau, “that the argument from prophecy can have no weight with me.” If you ask his reason, it follows. “Because, to give it any authority, three conditions are required, the concurrence of which is impossible. First, I must have been, myself, a witness of the prophecy, when delivered. Secondly, I must have been, myself; a witness of the event: And lastly, I must have it demonstrated to me that the agreement between the prophecy and the event could not have been fortuitous. For though the prophecy were clearer, and more precise, than a geometrical axiom, yet as the clearness of a prediction, made at hazard, does not render the accomplishment of it impossible, this accomplishment, allowing it to take place, proves nothing, strictly speaking, in favour of the person who foretold it.”First, he says,He must himself have been a witness of the prophecy. But why so? Is there no way of being reasonably assured that a prophecy has been delivered, unless one has been actually present at the delivery of it? Does any one doubt, whether Socrates told his friend that he should die within three days’ time, because he did not hear these words from the mouth of the philosopher? But, there is less reason still to doubt whether Jesus uttered the prophecies, ascribed to him in the Gospel.Next,He must have been, himself, a witness of the event. With just as good reason, as of the prophecy. However, it so happens that we are, or may be, if we please, witnesses of the events, foretold in many prophecies. What does he think of the dispersion of the Jews, for instance? Is he not a witness of this event?But lastly,He must have it demonstrated to him that the agreement between the prophecy and the event could not have been fortuitous. What, will nothing less thandemonstrationsatisfy him? Will not a high degree of probability serve him to form a conclusion upon, nay, and to regulate his conduct? And will he stand out against the strongest degree of evidence, short of mathematical, or a proofà la rigueur, as he terms it, in a subject, where, from the nature of it, mathematical certainty is not to be had?Surely one needs be no great philosopher to see that all which is wanting to give authority to the argument from prophecy, is, That we havereasonto admit the delivery of a prediction—that we havereasonto admit the completion of it—and that we have reason to think the agreement between the prediction and the event not fortuitous. And where is the impossibility that these three reasons should concur?—It is plain that the only one of these three reasons that appears in any degree problematical is the last concerning the completion of a prophecy in its event, whether it be fortuitous or not. Have I not reason then to say, as I do below p. 81, 82, that the strength of the infidel cause lies in this last consideration?—But what that strength is, we shall see as we go along.

First, he says,He must himself have been a witness of the prophecy. But why so? Is there no way of being reasonably assured that a prophecy has been delivered, unless one has been actually present at the delivery of it? Does any one doubt, whether Socrates told his friend that he should die within three days’ time, because he did not hear these words from the mouth of the philosopher? But, there is less reason still to doubt whether Jesus uttered the prophecies, ascribed to him in the Gospel.

Next,He must have been, himself, a witness of the event. With just as good reason, as of the prophecy. However, it so happens that we are, or may be, if we please, witnesses of the events, foretold in many prophecies. What does he think of the dispersion of the Jews, for instance? Is he not a witness of this event?

But lastly,He must have it demonstrated to him that the agreement between the prophecy and the event could not have been fortuitous. What, will nothing less thandemonstrationsatisfy him? Will not a high degree of probability serve him to form a conclusion upon, nay, and to regulate his conduct? And will he stand out against the strongest degree of evidence, short of mathematical, or a proofà la rigueur, as he terms it, in a subject, where, from the nature of it, mathematical certainty is not to be had?

Surely one needs be no great philosopher to see that all which is wanting to give authority to the argument from prophecy, is, That we havereasonto admit the delivery of a prediction—that we havereasonto admit the completion of it—and that we have reason to think the agreement between the prediction and the event not fortuitous. And where is the impossibility that these three reasons should concur?—It is plain that the only one of these three reasons that appears in any degree problematical is the last concerning the completion of a prophecy in its event, whether it be fortuitous or not. Have I not reason then to say, as I do below p. 81, 82, that the strength of the infidel cause lies in this last consideration?—But what that strength is, we shall see as we go along.

42Socrates foretold that he shoulddye within three days: and the event followed.—Est apud Platonem Socrates, cùm esset in custodiâ publicâ, dicens Critoni suo familiari, sibi post tertium diem esse moriendum—quod, ut est dictum, sic scribitur contigisse[Cic. de Div. l. i. c. 25.] Jesus foretold that he should suffer death bycrucifixion. [John iii. 14. viii. 28. xii. 32.] He, likewise, foretold that he shouldrise from the dead, withinthree daysafter his crucifixion. [John ii. 19. Matth. xii. 39, 40.]—Thefirstof these predictions might be a sagacious conjecture. Can it be said of such, as thetwo last,—Augurium, ratio est, et conjectura futuri?Ovid. Trist. l. I. viii. 51.

Augurium, ratio est, et conjectura futuri?Ovid. Trist. l. I. viii. 51.

43Hoc si est in libris, inquem hominem, et inquod tempusest? Callidè enim, qui illa composuit, perfecit, ut, quodcunque accidisset, prædictum videretur,hominum et temporum definitione sublatâ—said, in discredit of the Sibylline oracles [De Div.l. ii. p. 295.fol. Lutet.1565]: how far applicable to the scriptural prophecies, will be seen in its place.

44Διὰ τὸ ὅλως εἶναι ἁμάρτημα ἔλαττον, διὰ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ πράγματος λέγουσιν οἱ μάντεις. And again—οἱ χρησμολόγοι, οὐ προσορίζονται πότε. Aristot. Rhet. l. iii. c. v.

45Permultorum exemplorum et nostra plena est respublica, et omnia regna, omnesque populi, cunctæque gentes, augurum prædictis multa incredibiliter vera cecidisse.Cic. de Leg.l. ii. p. 337.

46Certabant, urbem Romam, Remoramne vocarent.Omnibu’ cura viris, uter esset induperator.Cedunt de cœlo ter quatuor corpora sanctaAvium, præpetibus sese, pulchrisque locis dant.Conspicit inde sibi data Romulus esse priora,Auspicio regni stabilita scamna solumque.Cic. de Div.l. i. c. 48.

Certabant, urbem Romam, Remoramne vocarent.Omnibu’ cura viris, uter esset induperator.Cedunt de cœlo ter quatuor corpora sanctaAvium, præpetibus sese, pulchrisque locis dant.Conspicit inde sibi data Romulus esse priora,Auspicio regni stabilita scamna solumque.Cic. de Div.l. i. c. 48.

Certabant, urbem Romam, Remoramne vocarent.Omnibu’ cura viris, uter esset induperator.

Cedunt de cœlo ter quatuor corpora sanctaAvium, præpetibus sese, pulchrisque locis dant.Conspicit inde sibi data Romulus esse priora,Auspicio regni stabilita scamna solumque.Cic. de Div.l. i. c. 48.

47Quot sæcula urbi Romæ debeantur, dicere meum non est: sed, quid apud Varronem legerim, non tacebo. Qui libro Antiquitatum duodevicesimo ait, fuisse Vettium Romæ in augurio non ignobilem, ingenio magno, cuivis docto in disceptando parem; eum se audisse dicentem: Si ita esset, ut traderent historici, de Romuli urbis condendæ auguriis, acduodecim vulturibus; quoniamCXXannos incolumis præteriisset populus Romanus, admille et ducentosperventurum.Censorinusde die natali, c. xvii. p. 97. Cantab. 1695.

48Hence Sidonius, in personating the city of Rome, makes her ask—Quid, rogo,bis senomihivultureThuscus aruspexPortendit?Sidon. Carm. vii. 55.And again, addressing himself to the same city,Jam propè fatatui bissenas vulturis alasComplebant (scis namque tuos, scis,Roma, labores.)Ib. ver. 358.And, before him, Claudian, to the same purpose—Tunc reputant annos,interceptoque volatuVulturis, incidunt properatis sæcula metis.B. G. ver. 262.

48Hence Sidonius, in personating the city of Rome, makes her ask—

Quid, rogo,bis senomihivultureThuscus aruspexPortendit?Sidon. Carm. vii. 55.

And again, addressing himself to the same city,

Jam propè fatatui bissenas vulturis alasComplebant (scis namque tuos, scis,Roma, labores.)Ib. ver. 358.

And, before him, Claudian, to the same purpose—

Tunc reputant annos,interceptoque volatuVulturis, incidunt properatis sæcula metis.B. G. ver. 262.

49Medea, ver. 374.

50Annis seris.

51Ferdinand.

52Casu, inquis. Itáne verò quicquam potest essecasufactum, quod omnes habet in se numeros veritatis? Quatuor tali jacti,casuVenereum efficiunt. Num etiam centum Venereos, siCCCCtalos jeceris,casufuturos putas?De Div.l. i. p. 259, Lutet. 1565.—Had the supposed case been fairly applied to the subject, there had been an end of the dispute; as may appear from the pitiful answer, made in the next book to this reasoning—dixisti multa decasu: ut, Venereum jaci posse casu, quatuor talis jactis; quadringentis, centum Venereos non posse casu consistere. Primùm,NESCIO, CUR NON POSSINT.—Was this, like a philosopher?

53Multa vera, inquit, evadere. Quid, quòd multo plura, falsa? Nónne ipsa varietas, quæ est propria fortunæ, fortunam esse causam, non naturam, docet?De Div.l. ii. p. 295. This, methinks, looks like sense.

54See the ancient apologists, who are frequent and large on this subject; and, of the moderns, see especially HuetiiDem. Evang. Prop.IX.—Bishop Kidder’sDem. of the Messias, c. ii. p. 17, 18. London, 1726, fol.—Dr. Clarke’sEvidences of Nat. and Rev. Religion.—Pensées de M. Pascal, p. 108.

55I take these examples to be more in point, than those given by Bishop Butler in hisAnalogy, P. II c. vii. p. 386. Lond. 1740: not but those, too, have their weight.

56Grotius.

57Serm. II.

58Ἀπ’ αἰῶνος. Luke i. 70.

59This use and intent of prophecy was seen, and admirably expressed, by the greatM. Pascal—“Les propheties sont mêlées de propheties particulieres, et de celles du Messie, afin que les propheties du Messie ne fussent pas sanspreuves, et que les propheties particulieres ne fussent pas sansfruit.”Pensées, p. 112.

60The Lord himself shall give you a sign, Isai. vii. 14.—ThisSIGN(and the extraordinary introduction of it, in the words quoted, indicates no less) had plainly a recondite and even complicated meaning!1. As addressed toAhaz, it was simply anASSURANCE, that his deliverance from his two great enemies was now at hand.2. As addressed to thehouse of David—Hear ye now, O house of David—it was aTYPEof Christ.3. It was, farther, aTOKEN, or pledge, that the remote deliverance of the house of David by Immanuel, should hereafter take place, just as the approaching deliverance of Ahaz, by the prophet’s Son, would be seen to do.4. This sign, when fulfilled in the near event, would, thenceforward, become aPROOF, or evidence, that it would be fulfilled in the remote one.5. Lastly, in the Antitype, the sign was aMIRACLE, properly so called.So eminently was this Child, aSIGN! Asign, in all thesensesof the word, as employed by the Jewish prophets; and to all thepurposes, for which signs were given.

1. As addressed toAhaz, it was simply anASSURANCE, that his deliverance from his two great enemies was now at hand.

2. As addressed to thehouse of David—Hear ye now, O house of David—it was aTYPEof Christ.

3. It was, farther, aTOKEN, or pledge, that the remote deliverance of the house of David by Immanuel, should hereafter take place, just as the approaching deliverance of Ahaz, by the prophet’s Son, would be seen to do.

4. This sign, when fulfilled in the near event, would, thenceforward, become aPROOF, or evidence, that it would be fulfilled in the remote one.

5. Lastly, in the Antitype, the sign was aMIRACLE, properly so called.

So eminently was this Child, aSIGN! Asign, in all thesensesof the word, as employed by the Jewish prophets; and to all thepurposes, for which signs were given.

61Ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν τὰ γενόμενα ἤδη πάντα ἀποδείκνυμεν, πρὶν ἢ γενέσθαι, προκεκηρύχθαι διὰ τῶν προφητῶν, ἀνάγκη καὶ περὶ τῶν ὁμοίως προφητευθέντων, μελλόντων δὲ γίνεσθαι, πίϛιν ἔχειν ὡς πάντως γενησομένων.Justin Martyr,Apol.i. c. 87.

62Isaiah vii. 16. Daniel ix. 24.

63Mal. iv. 5. Luke xvi. 16.

64Joel ii. 28, 29.

65Is not their case exactly delineated by the prophet Ezekiel—Mischief shall come upon mischief, and rumour shall be upon rumour; then shall theySEEK A VISION OF THE PROPHET; i. e. they shall seek what they shall not find,for theLAWshall perish from the priest, andCOUNCILfrom the ancients; i. e. their ecclesiastical and civil polity, to which prophecy was annexed, shall be utterly abolished. See Ezekiel vii. 26. and compare Isaiah iii. 1, 2.

66SeeA. Van Dale,de Oraculorum ethnicorum duratione atque interitu.

67The sacred text says—myriads—θεωρεῖς, ἀδελφὲ, πόσαι μυριάδες εἶσιν Ἰουδαίων τῶν πεπιϛευκότων—Acts xxi. 20.

68Acts x.

69Acts xiii. 42. 48.

70Τίνι γὰρ ἂν λόγῳ ἀνθρώπῳ ϛαυρωθέντι ἐπειθόμεθα, ὅτι πρωτότοκος τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ ἐϛι, καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν κρίσιν τοῦ παντὸς ἀνθρωπείου γένους ποιήσεται, εἰ μὴ μαρτύρια, πρὶν ἐλθεῖν αὐτὸν ἄνθρωπον γενόμενον, κεκηρυγμένα περὶ αὐτοῦ εὕρομεν, καὶ οὕτως γενόμενα ὁρῶμεν;Justin Martyr,Apol.i. c. 88.

71Acts xv. 18.

72Isaiah xl. 21.

73We see this design very plainly, in the prophecies of Jesus concerninghis own death and resurrection; concerningthe descent of the holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost; concerningevents, that were to befall his disciples; and in other instances.

74La plus grande des preuves de Jesus Christ, ce sont les propheties. C’est aussi à quoi Dieu a la plus pourvû; car l’evenement, qui les a remplies, est unMIRACLE SUBSISTANTdepuis la naissance de l’Eglise jusqu’ à la fin.M. Pascal.

75For these particulars, see Dr. Jortin’sRem. on Ecclesiastical History, vol. I. p. 20-89.

76An event, it must be owned, the more likely to happen, as the Jews had always been disposed totrust to their high and fenced walls; which yet could never defend them from their enemies, as their history shews, and, as Moses had distinctly foretold,Deut.xxviii. 52.

77Matth. xxiv. 28. and compare Luke xvii. 37. Ὅπου γὰρ ἐὰν ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα, ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί.—Meaning byeagles, the standards of the Roman army.—Some writers of name have, indeed, observed, that this is only aproverbialexpression. True: but proverbial prophecies are often fulfilled in the strict literal sense of the expression; as Grotius well observes on Matth. xxvi. 23. hîc quoque accidit, quod inmultis aliis vaticiniis, ut verba—non tantùm secundùm proverbialem loquendi modum, sed etiam secundùmexactissimam verborum significationemimplerentur.—If the reader calls to mind the prediction of our Lord, as it is elsewhere expressed, without a figure—when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed withARMIES[Luke, xxi. 20]—and compares it with theevent, he will hardly make a doubt whethereagles, in those figurative predictions, which respect the same subject, namely, the destruction of Jerusalem, were not intended by our Lord to denote, theRomanarmies.

78—debellaresuperbos. Virg.

79Assuredly this prophecy was not in the number of those, of which it hath been said—The prophecy is not occasioned by the event, but the event by the prophecy—L’evenement n’est pas predit parcequ’il arrivera; mais il arrive parcequ’il a été predit.Rousseau,Nouv. Hel.t. iv. p. 314. n. Neuf. 1764.

80Matth. xvi. 28.

81Matth. xxiv. 34.

82Luke xxi. 20.

83Luke xxi. 18. Acts ii. 21. Mark xiii. 20.

84See the learned Bishop Newton’sDissertations on the Prophecies, vol. ii, p. 268. n.

85Deut. xxviii.

861 Thess. ii. 16.

87Luke xxi. 22. 24.

88Rom. xi. 25.

89Jer. xlvi. 28.

90Isai. i. 21. Ezek. vi. 8.

91Lev. xxvi. 44.

92Hear the profound and reflecting M. Pascal—L’etat où l’on voit les Juifs est une grande preuve de la Religion. Car c’est une chose étonnante de voir ce peuplesubsisterdepuis tant d’années, & de le voirtoujours miserable—et, quoique il soit contraire,D’ETRE MISERABLE, & DE SUBSISTER, il subsiste neanmoins toujours malgré sa misère.Pensees, p. 115.

93—Multò minus nomen criminandum, in captivitate sacratorum suorum, qui supernam patriam veraci fide expectantes,etiam in suis sedibus peregrinos se esse noverunt.Aug. De Civ. Dei, l. i. 15.

94Jer. xlvi. 28.

95Ps. ii. 8.

96Mal. i. 2.

97Is. xlix. 6.

Back to Index Next