them cannot be decisive of their true import."* That is; the writers themselves of the words may have been in error respecting the meaning of the words; and, when we have ascertained what significance they attached to these, we have made no progress in a Biblical interpreter's proper work. * It is not, I suppose, by any means to be feared, that this theory will gain any footing. It has not only not generally been well received by any class of expositors, but has been formally refuted by some of those, from whom sobriety, in respect to principles of interpretation, was not confidently to be looked for. It rests upon no Scripture evidence; the two texts appealed to in its behalf (even if both were of clear canonical authority), falling far short of the representation, which they have been imagined to contain.† Besides being embarrassed by all the insuperable difficulties of the theory of verbal inspiration, they suppose an unnecessary and an unproved miracle, in the prophet's being dispossessed of his consciousness, so as to be made a vehicle of divine communications. If the prophet gave a sense to the words which he uttered, then the words, taken as a prophecy in any other sense, can, of themselves, have no value as proof; because the correspondence between them and the event to which the prophet supposed them to refer, that very correspondence which led the prophet to his opinion of their sense, would justify a reader in saying, that such was their sense, and that, accordingly, they had been already fulfilled. And again; words which the prophet did not himself understand, his readers would understand no better; and, accordingly, they would have no test in their minds, by which to try the question, whether those * "Christology," &c. Keith's Translation; Vol. I. pp. 234, 235. + 1 Pet. i. 10-12; 2 Pet. i. 17-21. words have been fulfilled. If I am to be satisfied, that a prediction has been accomplished,—that certain events have answered to certain words, I must first be satisfied, what that prediction, what those words, denote. It is mere reasoning in a circle to say, that the event puts a sense on the words, and then that the words describe the event. Of course, the words will then describe the event; and so they would, if the event were any other event, and the words any other words. But what right has the event to put a sense on the words? The very question at issue is, that of their correspondence together; and, to try this question, there is no other way but to bring and compare them together, as two independent things. Nothing is gained by arbitrarily making a correspondence, and then showing, that the correspondence we have made exists. This would not be a comparison of two things together, but of one thing and its duplicate, which we have fabricated for the purpose. The question, for an interpreter, is not upon a correspondence which he has made, but on an alleged correspondence which he did not make, and of whose existence he is to judge. Whoever is satisfied, that either of the methods of interpretation, which have been glanced at, presents a good claim to his adoption, will of course carry it into what he may think its proper applications in the examination of the books of the Later Prophets, as well as of others of the Biblical collection. But I apprehend, that, until a much better argument has been made out for them, than as yet we have seen, we must be content to interpret all the books of the Bible alike, on the same leading principle as any other books whatever; assuming, that whenever either God, or men using good faith, whichever the case may be, address men in words, they mean to be understood by them, and, accordingly, will employ the medium of communication in precisely the same manner, in which they, to whom instruction is to be conveyed, are accustomed to employ it. Used in any other way, it would cease to be a medium of communication. Whoever addresses me in language, if he means to be understood by me, will use it in the mode in which I expect to have it used. Otherwise, it would be better that he should be silent, or avail himself of a tongue unknown to me. In either of the latter cases, he would but leave me in ignorance. In the former, he would not fail to seduce me into error. LECTURE XXXIV. OBJECT AND CHARACTER OF THE WRITINGS OF THE LATER PROPHETS. STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION. PREVAILING OPINION RESPECTING THE current opinion respecting the character of the books of the Later Prophets may be briefly described as follows: They embody the knowledge possessed by their writers respecting future events; a knowledge directly and supernaturally communicated by the divine Being to those writers' minds. The predictions contained in them mainly relate to the advent, the character, and the circumstances of the life, of the Messiah, and so accurately describe these particulars, as they were afterwards combined in Jesus, that the correspondence is to be taken as an independent and cogent proof of his divine mission. But they also relate to events less remote from the time of their publication; and the main object of such predictions was, to establish the faith of those who saw them fulfilled, in the divine authority of the Prophet, and so to cause them to yield credit to what he further foretold concerning the coming of Christ. If the view, which I have thus described, has a claim to be received at all, that claim must stand upon a sufficient basis of evidence. That there is such sufficient evidence, I have no right to deny, previously to a survey of the books which are supposed to contain it. At present, I can do no more than state the question, and direct attention to the kind and degree of proof upon which the received doctrine must rest, if it is to be sustained, and to some particular inquiries, which, in the course of the examination, it will be necessary to institute, if, in so great a matter, we would proceed with becoming circumspection. And whenever, in the course of the remarks now to be made, I express a positive opinion upon any of the points at issue, I do it only for the sake of avoiding circumlocution, and wish to be understood as submitting its correctness to the test of observations, which will be suggested in the course of a reading of the books. It is commonly supposed, that the authority of our Lord's Apostles has decided the question before us; that they have affirmed, or (which is the same thing) have used arguments distinctly implying, the truth of the proposition, that events, taking place in their time, circumstantially fulfilled predictions uttered by the Later Prophets, in the use of knowledge of which they had become possessed, by direct, supernatural communication to their own minds. Some expositors, and they much the larger number, maintain, that the fact of such |