of their countrymen, and to admit the divine miffion of Chrift, as well as that of John.

I have thus endeavoured to fhew, that the ground, upon which thofe Jews, who looked no farther than the Baptift, attributed an infpired character to him, was partial; and have stated what appears the full evidence of it, to which they ought to have extended their views; that it might be distinctly seen, with what admirable ftrictnefs, the credentials of the Baptist were adjusted to the nature and defign of his office. And, as this point seems of confequence in any account of the teftimony of the Baptift to Jefus, this discourse fhall be clofed with a fhort illuftration of it.

Many prophets, and especially Elias, in whose spirit and power the Baptift came, had been permitted to work miracles. They ftood as fingle objects; and the public attention was to be drawn, and continued, to them alone. The exercise of a miraculous power would therefore directly facilitate their admiffion, in the character of divine meffengers. But the cafe was otherwife with the Baptift. The exercise of a miraculous power, as it must tend to fix the eyes of the people immoveably upon him, would have counteracted the real purpose of his office, which was in

tended

tended to manifest another unto Ifrael. And, as the Jews stood most in need of an inducement to look beyond the Baptift, the conclufive evidence of his divine miffion, was of that particular nature, which was beft calculated to carry their views forward to the Meffias.

A perfuafion that John really was a prophet, generally prevailed; this feems to be clear from the Jewish hiftorians. But the Scriptures alone affign the ground, upon which that perfuafion could be completely justified. According to them, neither the prophetical notice, given by the Baptift, "the kingdom of heaven is at hand," nor the preceding prophecies of the Angel and Zacharias, could be verified, except in the actual coming of the Meffiah; and all decifive evidence, of the infpiration of John, would therefore, as it feems, be excluded, if the Baptift was confidered independent of him.

A neceffary connection appears then to have fubfifted between them; and their credentials feem to have been unavoidably involved fo far, that the divine miffion of both was to be ascertained, at one inftant, and in one event. The Baptift came in the character of forerunner; and it was not poffible to prove

B 3

prove him, even a prophet, except from that very incident, which would alfo prove him the Forerunner. So evidently was it provided, that the Baptist could not fail to authenticate the divine miffion of the Meffias, by the fame means, and in the fame degree, wherein he established his own.

The credibility of the Gofpel-history of the Baptist will perhaps be confirmed, and his teftimony to Jefus enforced, if it has now been shewn with any fuccefs, that, although John certainly was received as a prophet, yet his character could not be proved prophetical, if it were any other, except that, which the Gospel-writers represent it, of Forerunner to the Meffiah.

SER

SERMON II.

MATT. iii. 5, 6.

Then went out to him Jerufalem, and all Judæa, and all the region round about Fordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confeffing their fins.

T

HE divine miffion of the Baptist, however strongly it might be prefumed, could not, as I have before endeavoured to fhew, be completely afcertained, if he were confidered fingly, and independent of the Meffias. If he did not really bear that. character of Forerunner to One Mightier, who was to come, which the Gofpel-writers attribute to him, no decifive evidence feems affignable, that he came from God.

This point having been difcuffed in the preceding difcourfe, I proceed to fhew, that fufficient evidences of his 'prophetical character might have been discovered, and accumulated, by confidering him as a messenger, fent to prepare the way of the Lord.

This will be attempted only in part, at present, by illustrating the baptismal doctrine of John, as far as it refpected the kingdom of heaven, and the people of Ifrael.

I. As John, by both his parents, was of the line of Aaron, he was by right of birth a priest of the God of Ifrael. When he attained the proper age for commencing his ministry, he declined the fervice of the Sanctuary, and forfook the Church of Ifrael ; but affumed, and publickly exercised, a facerdotal office, in obedience, as he profeffed, to the word of the Lord. Baptifm was the only one of the Jewish ceremonies, which he

a Evidence of a divine miffion may arise from one or more of the following circumftances. 1ft, From explaining former prophecies, fo as to imply fuch a clear and comprehenfive knowledge of the events, predicted therein, that it could not reasonably be afcribed to the unaffifted faculties of man; Or, zdly, from declaring that the accomplishment of prophecies was immediately approaching; Or, 3dly, from repeating the prophecies themselves, with new and additional circumstances; Or, laftly, from delivering predictions entirely original. Frequent occafion will arife of applying one or other of these criteria.

retained