and rife again, do truly belong to Jefus, unless we are first satisfied that Jefus died and rose again? We must be in poffeffion of the fact, before we can form any argument from prophecy: and therefore the truth of the refurrection, confidered 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 fhew from the prophets that Jefus was neceffarily to rife from the dead; and then to prove, that in fact Jefus never did rife: here would be a plain confequence. But if they do not like this method, they ought to let the prophecies alone; for if Jefus did not rife, there is no harm done if the prophets have not foretold it: and if they allow the refurrection of Jefus, what do they gain by difcrediting the prophecies? The event will be what it is, let the prophecies be what they will.

There are many prophecies in the Old Teftament relating to the Babylonish captivity, and very diftinct they are, describing the ruin of the holy city, the deftruction 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 fafe 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 fuppofition be absurd in

this cafe, it is so in every cafe; for the argument from prophecy is in all inftances the fame. It is plain then, that matters related in the Gospel do not depend for their reality upon the evidence of prophecy they may be true, though never foretold, or very obfcurely foretold; nay, they must be admitted as true, before we can fo 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 occafion have we, you will fay, to inquire after prophecy at all? Are not the many miracles of Chrift, his refurrection from the dead, his afcenfion to heaven, the pouring forth the gifts of the Spirit upon the Apoftles, their fpeaking with tongues, and doing many wonders in the name of Chrift, fufficient evidence to us of the truth of the Gofpel, without troubling ourselves to know whether these things were foretold, or in what manner they were foretold? To answer this question plainly, I think fuch facts, once admitted to be true, are a complete evidence of the divine authority of a revelation and had we known no more of Chrift, than that he claimed to be attended to as a person fent and commiffioned by God, he needed no other credentials than thefe already mentioned; and it would have been impertinent to demand what prophet foretold his coming. For, in a like cafe, who foretold the coming of Mofes to be a lawgiver to Ifrael? God had promised Abraham to give his pofterity the land of Canaan: but that he would give it by Mofes 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 Mofes, as a divine lawgiver, stands upon the miraculous works performed by him; and the wonderful atteftations given to him by the prefence of God in the mount, in the eyes of all the people: but upon prophecy it does not ftand, for of him there were no prophecies. This fhews that prophecy is not an evidence effential to the proof of a divine revelation; for it may be fpared in one as well as another.

But the case of the Gospel differs from that of the Law; for though the Law was not prophefied of, the Gospel was; he who delivered the Law was one of the first who prophefied of the Gospel, and told the people fo 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 fucceeding prophets speak more fully of the office, character, fufferings, and glory of the Saviour of Ifrael, and the defire of all nations. Now one of the characters, which our Saviour conftantly affumes and claims in the Gofpel, is this; that he is the perfon spoken of by Mofes 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 fo far neceffary to establish the claim of the Gospel; and it has been very juftly, as well as acutely, obferved, that the proof of this point must rely entirely on the evidence of prophecy. Mira

cles in this cafe can afford no help; if the prophets have not spoken of Chrift, all the miracles in the world will not prove that they have spoken of hima.

These confiderations fhew how far the Gospel is neceffarily concerned in prophetical evidence. Chrift has done the works which no man ever did, and given the fulleft evidence of a divine commiffion; but he claims to be the perfon foretold in the law and the prophets and as truth muft ever be confiftent with itself, this claim must be true, or it deftroys all others. This is the point then to be tried on the evidence of prophecy Is Chrift that perfon 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 Testament be convincing to us, or no; it matters little : the fingle queftion is, Is there enough plain to fhew us that Chrift is the perfon foretold under the Old Teftament? If there is, we are at an end of our inquiry, and want no further help from prophecy; especially fince we, to use St. Peter's expreffion, have in this cafe feen the day dawn, and enjoyed the marvelz lous light of the Gospel of God.

I am not now fpeaking of the great advantage that may be made of prophetical evidence for convincing unbelievers of the truth of the Gospel; but am confidering how far the truth of the Gospel neceffarily depends upon this kind of evidence. These are two very different inquiries. It is necessary for us to fhew that Chrift is the person proa Grounds and Reasons, p. 31.

mised to be a Saviour to Ifrael; and when we have shewed this, no oppofer of the Gospel has more to demand. But we may carry our inquiries much further : we may contemplate all the fteps of Provi− dence relating to the falvation and redemption of mankind in the feveral ages of the world, and, by a comparison of all the parts, may difcern, that Chrift 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 earneft of the great deliverance he intended to give by his Son: that all the ceremonials of the Law were reprefentations of the fubftance of the Gospel that the Aaronical facrifices and priefthood were figures of better things to come. But thefe inquiries do not ftand in the rank of things to be neceffarily proved to every believer; they do not enter into the principles of the doctrine of Chrift, as the Apostle to the Hebrews exprefsly tells us; but belong to those who go on to perfection: which diftinction, given by the Apoftle in the fifth and fixth chapters to the Hebrews, is well worth confidering, as being a key to open the true use of all typical and allegorical applications of Scripture.

D