whence many gave way, listened to corrupt teachers, fell from their steadfastness, and, to avoid suffering, denied the Lord that bought them: (2 Ep. iii. 17. 1.)

In this state of things, after an interval of five or six years, the Apostle sends his second epistle; and it answers in every point to this account. He endeavors, in the first chapter, to re-establish their hopes: in the second he notices the false teachers, and threatens them with swift destruction: in the third he considers the scoffers and their irreligious insult, entering into their argument, and showing, from what had already happened in the world, how perversely they reasoned about future things. He concludes with proper cautions to Christians respecting the times and seasons of God's judgments, and guards not only his own, but St. Paul's doctrine, on this article, viz. the coming of Christ, against the arguments of the unlearned and unstable.

This then is the main point of the second epistle; and St. Peter himself tells us 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; adding also, and of the commandments of us the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 2 Ep. iii. 1. 2. This key will open this so much perplexed passage of Scripture; from which it is evident that the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is the only point here in question; and that not a word relates to any other fact or doctrine of the gospel. To prove this point, the Apostle declares that he had himself been an eye-witness of his majesty and glory. But this evidence is not sufficient. What is there to prove his future coming again in this power and glory? There is a great presumption that he will so come, in that the Apostle saw him glorified, and God openly declared him to be his well-beloved Son: but to assure us that he will indeed so come and use his power, it is said, We have a more sure word of prophecy. This interpretation is

shown to be necessary to the Apostle's argument, plainly enforced by the context, and to stand clear of all difficulties. The more sure word of prophecy here mentioned is shown to refer not only to the prophecies of the Old, but also to those of the New Testament. The above interpretation of the passage furnishes an answer to one objection, stated by the learned Grotius, against the authority of the epistle.

DISCOURSE I.

II PETER, CHAP. I.-VERSE 19.

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts.

THERE being evidently a comparison in the text between the 'word of prophecy,' and something before mentioned or intended, it is necessary to look back to see how the relation stands, and what the thing is to which the word of prophecy' is compared and preferred. At the 16th verse the Apostle says, 'We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.' And after thus disclaiming all art and deceit in setting forth the promises and expectations of the gospel, he proceeds to declare on what evidence and authority he had raised such expectations in them: But (we) 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.' Immediately follow the words of the text, We have also a more sure word of prophecy.'

You see on what foundation their inference stands, who assert that the evidence which Christians have from prophecy for the certainty of their hopes and expectations, compared with the evidence they have from the preaching of the Apostles, who were eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses of what they report concerning the majesty of Christ, is the greater and surer evi

dence; or, in the words of a late author,* that "prophecy is a stronger argument than a miracle, which depends on external evidence and testimony." This author has taken great pains to show that the argument from prophecy for the truths of Christianity, as managed and applied by the writers of the New Testament, is absurd and ridiculous; and that we may not flatter ourselves with hopes of assistance from other arguments, he gives us this text of St. Peter, to show, by the authority of our own Scriptures, that prophecy, as bad an argument as it is, is nevertheless the very best that our cause affords: but his views be to himself; what truth there is in his exposition and application of this part of Scripture we shall soon see.

Interpreters differ very much in expounding this passage; but all, as far as I see, agree in rejecting this sense, which gives a superiority to the evidence of prophecy above all other evidence by which the truth of the gospel is confirmed; and indeed the text expounded to this meaning contradicts not only the general sense of mankind on this subject, but will be found likewise inconsistent with itself and many other places of Scripture. For, first, let any man consider, and say on what proof and evidence the authority of prophecy itself depends: can any prophet give greater proof of his divine mission than the power of working miracles? And if this be the last and the greatest proof he can give of his being sent by God, can the evidence of prophecy ever rise higher than the evidence of miracles, on which it ultimately depends for all its authority? When Gideon was called to the deliverance of Israel, the angel of the Lord came and said unto him, 'The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of valor;-go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites; have not I sent thee?' Here now was a prophecy delivered by the angel of the Lord to encourage his undertaking. What says Gideon to this? He desires a sign: 'If now I have found favor in thy sight, then show me a sign that thou talkest with me.' A sign is given him, a miraculous sign; he is satisfied, and undertakes the work appointed; to which he is again encouraged by two miracles

*A Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion' 1724. p. 27.

6

wrought at his request: Judges vii. What think you now? The prophecy delivered by the angel was as much a prophecy before as it was after miracles wrought in confirmation of it; but was the word of prophecy more sure before the miracles than after? If so, why was a sign desired? and, when desired, why was it granted? Does God work miracles to humor men in their folly? or is it to confirm their faith? If it be to confirm their faith, then our faith in the prophets depends on the authority of miracles; and since the stream can never rise above the spring-head, the evidence of prophecy cannot be greater than the evidence of miracles. But let us take a higher instance: Moses was the first and the greatest prophet of the law, to whom God spoke face to face :' he was called by God to deliver the children of Israel out of Egypt, and commissioned to assure them of God's immediate protection. This, I suppose, was sufficient to make him a prophet to Israel: but what says Moses? Behold they will not believe me, nor hearken to my voice; or they will say, The Lord hath not appeared unto thee.' Was this a foolish complaint in Moses? If it was, how came God to listen to it, and to furnish him with an answer above all exception, by giving him immediately a power to work miracles in confirmation of his prophecy? Does not this method of God's proceeding plainly show that miracles are the prophet's greatest authority and confirmation? What is that superior evidence of prophecy then, which is said so much to exceed the evidence of miracles? But to go on the comparison in the text, with respect to St. Peter himself, is between the word of prophecy' and the immediate word of God; and according to this exposition of the text, St. Peter, who declares that he heard the voice of God himself in the mount, is made in his own person to say, (for the words are, WE have a more sure word of prophecy,') that the dark prophecies of the Old Testament were a surer and more certain evidence than this immediate voice of God which he heard with his own ears. Now what is prophecy, that it should be more surely and certainly to be depended on than the immediate voice of God? Is it possible to think that St. Peter, or any man in his wits, could make such a comparison?

But farther, let us consider what account St. Peter himself