mit 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 Cornelius ; and the Apostle Paul, urging it with effect, on the Jews indeed first, but also on the Asiatic Gentiles °. 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 argument P. 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 em

Ρ Τίνι γὰρ ἂν λόγῳ ἀνθρώπῳ ςαυρωθέντι ἐπειθόμεθα, ὅτι πρωτότοκ τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ ἐξι, καὶ ἀυτὸς τὴν κρίσιν τὰ παντὸς ἀνθρωπεία γένεις ποιήσειας, εἰ μὴ μαρτύρια, πρὶν ἐλθεῖν αὐτὸν ἄνθρωπον γενόμενοι, κεκηρυγμένα περὶ αὐτὰ εὕρομεν, καὶ ὕτως γενόμενα ὁρῶμεν ;

JUSTIN MARTYR, Apol. i. c. 88.

V.

SERMON ployed, 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 indepen

V.

dent of the belief, or the expectation, and SERMON 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

V.

SERMON 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 con clude, 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 suppo

sition..

V.

I know, indeed, that, unless we suppose the SERMON 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?