and unbelievers, as foretold by the prophets under both Testaments. But this coming of Christ was future, and at a distance, and depended intirely (as to any knowlege that could be had of it) on the authority of prophecy; for which reason St. Peter refers, in his first epistle, to the ancient prophets, and to the inspired preachers of the gospel, to justify the hopes he raised; of which salvation,' or deliverance, says he, 'the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you :' i. 10. which things are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you, with the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven' ver. 12. And for the same reason, in this second epistle he refers again to prophecy, as being of all others (and in things of futurity it needs must be) the most sure evidence.'

6

6

This account of St. Peter's epistles is indeed not mine, but his own; for he tells us expressly that his intention in both his epistles was to make them to whom they were sent, mindful of the words which were spoken before of the holy prophets :' he adds, and of the commandments of us the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour:' 2 Ep. iii. 1. 2. That this latter part relates to the same subject as the former, will appear by comparing it with the passage just before quoted, 1 Ep. i. 12. where St. Peter considers the Apostles, as prophets or expounders of the prophets, under the assistance of the Holy Ghost, preaching those very things which the ancient prophets had 'testified beforehand.'

Take this key along with you, and see how it will open this so much perplexed passage of Scripture now under consideration: the Apostle's reasoning to the faithful believers is this: 'We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the POWER and COMING of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his MAJESTY. For he received from God the Father HONOR and GLORY, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a MORE SURE word of prophecy: 2 Ep. i. 16. &c.

It is evident that the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is the only point here in question; not a word is there relating to any other fact or doctrine of the gospel. To prove this point, the Apostle tells them he had been an eye-witness of his majesty or glory. Whilst our Saviour lived on earth, his condition was mean, and his fortune low: this was a great prejudice against him in the opinion of the Jews, who expected greater things from their Redeemer, and could not easily hope to see him return in glory and power, who lived and died so meanly and so miserably. It is a sufficient answer to all such prejudices, to prove that, mean as he appeared, he had a real majesty, and was actually invested with honor and glory from God the Father.

But this evidence manifestly extends but to one part of the point in question, to show that Christ had himself been glorified; what is there then to show that he will ever return again in this glory and power? For allow all this to be true, might an objector say; yet how does it prove the hopes you would raise of his speedy return in power and glory to deliver his servants, and to take vengeance of his foes? For what is past we willingly take your word; you are a competent witness of what your eyes beheld, and of what your ears heard; but will your seeing him in glory on the mount some years ago, necessarily infer that he shall come again in glory some years hence; and that too, to execute the very purposes you declare? Can any certainty as to future events be collected from past events? or can any thing we see this year assure us what will happen to us the next?

It is true, (we may suppose the Apostle to answer,) all future events are in the hands of God; to him only are they known, and from him only can they certainly be learned. All other arguments in this case can amount only to probabilities and presumptions; and a great presumption it is that Christ shall come in glory, that we have already seen him glorified; and it is a farther evidence of his power to deliver his servants, since God has openly declared him to be his 'well-beloved Son' but to assure us that he will indeed so come, and so use his power, we have a more sure word of prophecy:' that is, we have the very word of God, (speaking by his prophets,) to

whom all futurity is known, to assure us of the certainty of this future event.

This interpretation, as it is easy and natural in itself, and renders to every expression in the text its proper and usual signification; so it is necessary, I conceive, to the Apostle's argument, and plainly enforced by the context, and stands clear of all difficulties. Here is no pretence to say that prophecy is better argument for the truth of the gospel than all the miracle of Christ and his Apostles; for the truth of the gospel is not the point here in question. St. Peter speaks only of the coming of Christ in power,' and of a 'salvation ready to be revealed ;' which being yet to come, admitted of no surer evidence than the word of prophecy;' which yet he tells us was only as a light shining in a dark place.' But the gospel was not a thing 'ready to be revealed;' it had long since been revealed: th gospel was not a light shining in a dark place,' but, as he hi self expressly calls it, a marvellous light,' into which t had been called out of darkness: 1 Ep. ii. 9.

One word more, and I have done with this subject. I more sure word of prophecy' here mentioned is not to understood merely of the prophecies of the Old Testament, f. it may refer to the prophecies of the New; and probably does as appears by St. Peter's appealing not only to the ancien prophets, but also to the preachers of the gospel. How unhap pily then was this text made choice of to set up ancient pr phecy in opposition to the gospel evidence, since the prophe here intended is probably itself a gospel evidence, and so f from being superior to all the miracles of Christ and h Apostles, that it owes all its authority to them.

The giving light to this passage will furnish us with at answer to one objection raised against the authority of thi second epistle of St. Peter. The learned Grotius judged fror some characters which he observed in it, that this secon epistle was penned after the destruction of Jerusalem; befor which St. Peter was dead. But it is very evident that th author of this second epistle speaks of Christ's coming i power and glory in the very manner which St. Peter speaks o it in the first epistle; and indeed with no other view than tha of justifying what was delivered in the first epistle. If by th

'salvation ready to be revealed,' and the day of visitation,' and appearing of Jesus Christ,' in the first epistle, we are to understand the Apostle as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem then near at hand, we must necessarily in the second epistle understand the same thing by the power and coming of our Lord Jesus; which power and coming was, at the time of vriting the second epistle, so far from being over, that it is reated as a thing to come; and for the certainty of which St. Peter had no better evidence than the 'word of prophecy.' Or, if any other coming of Christ is to be understood in this second epistle, the same must be understood in the first; for the second is but a vindication of the doctrine of the first; and no notion common to both epistles can be an objection against the second, since the first was never doubted of in the hurch. And indeed, whoever reads the two epistles, and mpares them carefully, will see such a concern in the second support the sentiments of the first, that he will be inclined think that the second epistle could come from no other nd but that which penned the first.

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.

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. 9-12. 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