The Old Teftament had been early translated into the Greek language; and received into the politeft libraries of those times.

With thefe ideas, let us open the New Teftament, and it is obvious that no picture can be more like its original, than these prophecies of Chrift in one Teftament, are to his history in the other. Here we fee that extraordinary virgin- birth unravelled. -Here we fee a life fpent in turning the hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the juft- Here we find the prince of his people, a man of forrows, and acquainted with grief.--Here we fee the Lord of righteoufnefs numbered with tranfgreffors-we fee his hands and his feet pierced-we fee him made an offering for fin-and we fee realized that extraordinary idea of death without corruption.

It were an easy matter to carry this comparison through a more minute detail of circumstances: but I mean only to trace the outlines of this great refemblance. To compleat the picture would be a copious work.

Besides these predictions, which related immediately to the life and death of Chrift: there were many others, which deferve notice. Among thefe the two great leading prophecies were thofe of the calling of the Gentiles, and of the difperfion of the Jews.

The calling of the Gentiles was one of the earliest prophecies of the Old Teftament. The Jews were diftinguished in appearance, as the favourite people of God; and they were fufficiently elated upon that distinction. But if they had attended clofely to their prophets, they might have difcovered, that all the prophecies which defcribed the happy ftate of the church, had evidently a more diftant profpect, than to them. Thofe early promifes, in particular, which were repeated to the patriarchs, were not merely confined to their pofterity; but included all the nations of the earth *."-And when the later prophets, as the great event approached, fpoke a plainer, and a more intelligible language, the whole nation might have underflood, as Simeon, and fome of the wifeft and most intelligible of them did understand, that "a light was fprung up to lighten the Gentiles."

The prophecy of the difperfion of the Jewish nation is alfo very antient, being attributed by Mofes to the patriarch Jacob. "The fceptre fhall not depart from judah, until Shiloh come." Whatever may be the precife meaning of the word fceptre' in the original; and though it may not per haps properly fignify that idea of regal power, which it conveys to our ears; yet it certainly means fome badge of autho rity, that implies a formed and fettled government. And as to the word Shiloh,' all commentators, jewish as well as chriftian, explain it to mean the Meffiah-The fenfe therefore of the prophecy is plainly this-that the Jews fhould continue in the form of a fociety, till the time of the Meffiah. Accordingly we find that, foon after Chrift's death, the fceptre did depart from Judah: the Jews loft all form of a political fociety; and are a fingular inftance of a people, fcattered over the whole earth, preferved to this day feparate from all other people, and yet without a fettlement any where.

Our Saviour's prophecy of the growth of his church, is likewife among the more remarkable predictions. He told his dif ciples, that his religion was like a grain of mustard-feed, which was the leaft of all feeds; but when it grew up, it fhould become a great tree, and the fowls of the air fhould lodge in the branches of it." He told them alfo, that "the gates of hell should never prevail against it."

The Jewish religion was continually enforced by the idea of a jealous God, watching over it, and threatening judg ments from heaven upon every tranf greffion. The divine authority was ftamped openly upon it. The people trembled, and worshipped.

When the impoftor Mahomet fet up for a reformer, he could not indeed enforce his religion by divine judgments; but he did it by temporal. He drew his fword, and held it to the breafts of his oppofers; while he promised to the obedient a full gratification of their paffions.

But in the chriftian religion, nothing of this kind appeared. No temporal judg ments threatened on one hand: no fenfual indulgences allured on the other. A few defponding ignorant mechanics, the dif ciples of a perfon crucified as a common malefactor, were all the parade, with which

this religion was ushered into the world; and all the human affiftance which it had to boaft. And yet this religion, which oppofed the strongest prejudices, and was oppofed by the greateft princes, made its way in a few years, from a remote corner, through the whole Roman empire. Thus was our Saviour's prophecy, in oppofition to all human calculation, exactly fulfilled. The leaft of all feeds became a fpreading tree; and a church was established, which could not be destroyed by all the powers of hell.

But although the church of Chrift could not be deftroyed, it was corrupted; and in a courfe of years fell from its genuine purity. This corrupt ftate of it-the delutions of popery-the efforts of reformation, and various other circumstances relating to it, are not unreasonably fuppofed to be held forth, in the prophetic parts of the New Teftament.

But I forbear to dwell upon prophecies, which are not obvious enough to carry general conviction; though many of them have been well explained by thofe, who are verfed in the hiftories to which they allude. Future times will, in all probability, reflect a ftronger light upon them. Some of the great prophecies, which we have juft confidered, fhone but with a feeble ray, during the times they were fulfilling, though they now ftrike us in fo forcible a

manner.

Gilpin.

We have now fhewn upon what foundation we believe the fecond article of our creed; let us next confider the remaining articles-the history of Chrift, as delivered in fcripture, and the benefits which he procared for us the affistance of the Holy Spirit-the remillion of our fins-and ever. lafting life.

First, then, we believe that Chrift was "conceived of the Holy Ghost, and born of the virgin Mary." The manner of this miraculous conception we inquire not into. It is a point not only beyond the limits of human inquiry; but to us at least a point very unimportant. We believe juft the Scripture-account of it, and affure our

felves, that if it had concerned us, it wou'd have been more plainly revealed.-One thing, however, we may obferve on this head, that nothing is faid in Scripture of paying divine honours to the virgin Mary. Those rites are totally of popish origin.

We farther believe, that Chrift «fuffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; and that he defcended into hell," that is, we declare our belief of the Scripture account of the circumftances and the reality of Chrift's death.

To make an action clear, it is neceflary, firft, to establish its date. This is ufually done by ranging it under the magistrate who then prefided, the time of whole government is always registered in fome public record. Thus we believe that Chrift's death happened when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea. We believe alfo, with regard to the manner of his death, that he was crucified; that he died as really as any mortal ever did; and that he was buried in the tomb of Jofeph of Arimathea +.

The "defcent into hell" is undoubtedly a more obfcure expreffion than might be wished in a creed, and was not indeed added till many ages after the creed was first compofed . But as creeds are human compofitions, we believe this, and every other difficulty, only as confiftent with Scripture. Now the fenfe which feems moft agreeable to Scripture, is, that his foul remained till his refurrection in that place (whatever that place is) where the fpirits of the bleffed reft: and the expreffion feems to have been added, only that we may the more strongly express our belief of the reality of his death. This we do, when we exprefs our belief of the feparation of his foul and body. "He was buried," and "defcended into hell." The first expreffion relates to his body, which was laid in the grave; the fecond to his foul, which paffed into the place of departed fpirits.

We farther believe, that" on the third day he rofe again from the dead." The refurrection of Chrift from the dead is a point of the utmost importance to chrif

1 See Bingham's Antiquities, vol. iii. e. 3.

tians. On the certainty of Chrift's refurrection depend all hopes of our own. On this article, therefore, we fhall be more large.

And, in the first place, what is there in it that need fhock our reafon? It was a wonderful event: but is not nature full of wonderful events? When we feriously weigh the matter, is it lefs ftrange, that a grain of corn thrown into the ground hould die, and rife again with new vegetation, than that a human body, in the fame circumstances, fhould affumne new life? The commonnefs of the former makes it familiar to us, but not in any degree lefs unaccountable. Are we at all more acquainted with the manner in which grain germinates, than with the manner in which a body is raised from the dead? And is it not obviously striking, that the fame power which can effect the one, may effect the other allo?-Bucanalogy, though it tend to convince, is no proof. Let us proceed then to matter of fact.

That the body was dead, and fafely lodged in the tomb, and afterwards conveyed out of it, was agreed on, both by those who oppofed, and by thofe who favoured the refurrection. In the circumitances of the latter fact, they differ widely.

The difciples tell their ftory-a very plain and fimple one-that, fcarce expecting the event, notwithstanding their mafter had himself foretold it, they were furprised with an account that the body was gone that they found afterwards, to their great aftonishment, that their mafter was again alive-that they had been feveral times with him; and appealed for the truth of what they faid to great numbers, who, as well as themselves, had seen him after his refurrection.

The chief priests, on the other fide, declared the whole to be a forgery; afferting, that the plain matter of fact was, the difciples came by night, and stole the body away, while the foldiers flept.

Such a tale, unfupported by evidence, would be listened to in no court of juftice. It has not even the air of probability. Can it be fuppofed, that the difciples, who had fled with terror when they might have refcued their mafter's life; would venture, in the face of an armed guard, to carry off his dead body?-Or is it more probable, that they found the whole guard afleep; when we know, that the vigilance of cen

tinels is fecured by the ftricteft difciplice?

Befides, what advantage could arife from fuch an attempt? If they miscarried, it was certain ruin, both to them and their caufe. If they fucceeded, it is difficult to fay what ufe they could make of their fuccefs. Unless they could have produced thoir dead body alive, the second error would be worse than the firft. Their mafter's prophecy of his own resurrection was an unhappy circumftance; yet ftill it was wrapped in a veil of obfcurity. But if his difciples endeavoured to prove its completion, it was their business to look well to the event. A detection would be fuch a comment upon their master's text, as would never be forgotten. When a caufe depends on falfehood, every body knows, the lefs it is moved the better.

This was the cafe of the other fide. Obfcurity there was wanted. If the chief priests had any proof, why did they not produce it? Why were not the difciples taken up and examined upon the fact? They never abfconded. Why were they not judicially tried? Why was not the trial made public? and why were not authentic memorials of the fraud handed down to pofterity; as authentic memorials were of the fact, recorded at the very time, and place, where it happened? Chritianity never wanted enemies to propagate its difparagement.-But nothing of this kind was done. No proof was attempted-except indeed the teftimony of men afleep. The difciples were never queflioned upon the fact; and the chief priests refted fatisfied with spreading an inconfiftent rumour among the people, impreffed merely by their own autho rity.

Whatever records of heathen origin remain, evince the truth of the refurrection. One is very remarkable. Pontius Pilate fent the emperor Tiberius a relation of the death and refurrection of Chrift; which were recorded at Rome, as ufual, among other provincial matters. This intelligence made fo great an impreffion, it feems, upon the emperor, that he referred it to the fenate, whether Jefus Chrift of Judea fhould not be taken into the number of the Roman gods?-Our belief of this fa is chiefly founded upon the teftimony of Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, two learned heathens, in the age fucceeding Chrift, who became chriftians from this very evidence, among others, in favour of

christianity.

chriftinanity. In their apologies*, ftill extant, one of which was made to the fenate of Rome, the other to a Roman governor, they both appeal to thefe records of Pentius Pilate, as then generally known; which we cannot conceive fuch able apologits would have done, if no fuch records had ever exiled t

Having feen what was of old objected to the refurrection of Chrift, it may be proper alfo to fee the objections of modern

Cibelievers.

And, firt, we have the ftale objection, that nothing is more common among the propagators of every new religion, than to delade their ignorant profelytes with i le lories. What a variety of inconfiftent tales did the votaries of heathenim beLive! What abfurdities are adopted into the Mahometan creed! To what strange as do the vulgar papifts give credit! And can we fuppofe better of the refurrection of Christ, than that it was one of thofe pious frauds, intended merely to impole upon the people, and advance the credit of the new feet?

Tis is just as eafily f.id, as that his diciples ftale him away, while the guard

Both are affertions without proof. Others have objected Chrift's partial dicovery of himself, after his refurrection. If he had boldly fhewn himfelf to the chief pries; or publicly to all the people; we might have had a more rational foundation for our belief. But as he had coly for his wineffes, upon this occafion, a few of his chofen companions, the thing bas certainly a more fecret appearance than might be wished.

This infinuation is founded upon a paffage in the Acts of the Apolles, in which it is faid, that God fhewed him openly, not to all the people, but unto witnefles choien before of God." The question is, what is meant by witneffes chofen before of God? Certainly nothing more than perfons exprefsly, and by particular defignation, intended to be the witneffes of this event. Others might fee him if they

pleafed: but these were not the people, to whom God fhewed him openly: this particular defignation was confined to the "chofen wineffes."And is there any thing more in this, than we fee daily in all legal proceedings? Does not every body wish to have the fact, about which he is concerned, authenticated by indubitable records; or by living teftimony, if it can be had? Do we not procure the hands of witneffes, appointed to this purpose, in all our deeds and writings?-Let us not, however, anfwer the objection by an arhitrary explanation of the text; but let us compare this explanation with the matter of fact.

On the morning of the refurrection, the apofles, who ran to the fepulchre to make themfelves acquainted with what they had heard, received a meffage from their mafter, injoining them to meet him in Galilee. It does not appear, that this mefiage was conveyed with any fecrecy; it is rather probable it was not; and that the difciples told it to as many as they met. The women, it is exprefsly faid, told it "to the eleven, and all the reft." Who the rest were, does not appear: but it is plain, from the fequel, that the thing was generally known; and that as many as chofe either to fatisfy their faith, or gratify their curiofity, repaired for that purpose to Galilee. And thus we find St. Peter making a diftinction between the voluntary and the chofen witnefs-between thofe "who had companied with the apoftles all the time that the Lord Jefus went in and out among them, from his baptifm till his afcenfion," and those who were ordained to be the witneffes of his refurrection ."

St. Paul goes farther, and in exprefs words tells us, "that Chrift was feen

Creed

if he appeared only to five hundred people, of whom St. Paul tells us the greatest part were still alive, when he wrote this epiftle, there can furely be no reasonable cause of offence at his appearing, befides thefe, to a few of his chofen companions, who at tended by exprefs appointment, as perfons defigned to record the event.

In fact, if the fame method be purfued in this inquiry, which is ufual in all others, the evidence of these chofen companions is all that is neceffary. Here are twelve men produced (in general three or four men are thought fufficient) on whose evidence the fact depends. Are they competent witneffes? Have they those marks about them, which characterise men of integrity? Can they be challenged on any one ground of rational exception? If not, their evidence is as ftrictly legal, as full, and as fatisfactory, as any reasonable man can require. But in this great caufe, we fee the evidence is carried ftill farther. Here are five hundred perfons waiting without, ready to add their teftimony, if any one fhould require it, to what has already been more than legally proved. So that the argu. ment even addreffes itfelf to that abfurd diftinétion, which we often find in the cavils of infidelity, between rem certam, and rem certiffimam.

Upon the whole, then, we may affirm boldly, that this great event of the refurrection of Christ is founded upon evidence equal to the importance of it. If we expect ftill more, our answer is upon record: If ye believe not Mofes and the prophets," God's ordinary means of falvation, "neither will ye be perfuaded, though one rofe from the dead."-There must be bounds in all human evidence; and he who will believe nothing, unless he have every pollible mode of proof, must be an infidel in almost every tranfaction of life. With fuch perfons there is no reafoning. They who are not fatisfied, becaufe Chrift did not appear in open parade at Jerufalem; would farther have afked, if he had appeared in the manner they expected, why did he not appear to every nation upon earth? Or, perhaps, why he did not fhew himfelf to every individual?

To thefe objections may be added a fcruple, taken from a paffage of Scripture, in which it is faid, that Chrift should lie three days and three nights in

the heart of the earth :" whereas, in fact, he only lay two nights, one whole day, and a part of two others,

But no figure in fpeech is more common than that of putting a part for the whole. In the Hebrew language perhaps this licence is more admiffible, than in any other. A day and a night complete one whole day: and as our Saviour lay in the ground a part of every one of these three portions of time, he might be faid, by an eafy liberty of speech, to have lain the whole. Gilpin.

$155.

Creed continued Christ's Afcenfiom -Belief in the Holy Ghoft.

We believe farther, that Chrift “ascended into heaven, and fitteth on the right hand of God."

Chrift's afcenfion into heaven refts ou the fame kind of proof, as his refurrection. Both of them are events, which the apoftles were "ordained to witnefs." But though their teftimony in this cafe, as well as in the refurrection, is certainly the mot legal, and authentic proof, and fully fufficient for any reasonable man; yet this does not exclude the voluntary teftimony of others. It is evident, that the apoftles were not the fole eye-witnefes of this event for when St. Peter called together the firft affembly of the church to chufe a fucceffor to Judas Iscariot, he tells them, they muft neceffarily chufe one, out of thofe men, who had been witneffes of all that Chrift did, from his baptifm “till his afcenfion:" and we find, there were in that meeting an hundred and twenty persons *, thus qualified.

Be it however as it will, if this article fhould reft on a lefs formal proof, than the refurrection, it is of no great confequence: for if the refurrection be fully proved, nobody can well deny the afcenfion. If the teftimony of the evangelifts be allowed to prove the one; their word may be taken to establish the other.

With regard to "the right hand of Ged," it is a fcriptural expreffion afed merely in conformity to our grofs conceptions; and is not intended to imply any diftinction of parts, but merely the idea of pre-eminence.

We believe farther,, that "Chrift shall come to judge the quick and the dead." This article contains the most serious