LECTURE XX.

HAVING examined the causes, which produce the variety observable in the expositions of Hebrew prophecy, we might in the next place inquire, wheth er it is not possible to assign such rules of interpretation, as may be the means of greater harmony in our commentaries on that subject. But the general rules for the interpretation of the Bible, which have been fully explained in former Lectures, are appli. cable, as well to the prophetic books, as to other parts of the sacred volume. For in every instance we must consider the words, which we interpret, as signs to the reader of what was thought by the author.

There is indeed one distinction to be made be tween the interpretation of prophecy, and the interpretation of history; a distinction founded on a dif ference of inspiration. The inspiration of prophecy must be different from that, which would at least be sufficient for the inspiration of history. If an histo rian records events, which have either come within his own knowledge, or of which he has the means of

obtaining correct information, he cannot want that kind of inspiration, which is called an inspiration of suggestion. And exemption from error is in such cases sufficiently secured, if the Holy Spirit, while it leaves the historian to act for himself, as long as the record is true, is ready to interpose, whenever there is danger of a deviation from the truth. But widely different is the case of prophecy. An inspiration of suggestion is there absolutely necessary : for it lies not within the power of unassisted man to discover what persons will be born, or what transactions will take place, after a lapse of some hundreds of years. It is true, that our own reason enables us to argue from the past to the future. A comparison of causes with their consequences at a former period may warrant the conclusion, that a recurrence of the same causes will probably lead to a recurrence of the same consequences. And when those causes actually have recurred, we may predict with some probability, that the time is not far distant, when also the consequences will recur. If, for instance, we compare the present situation of our Church with its situation at a former period, we must have our apprehensions, and perhaps our forebodings. But such forebodings are very different from that knowledge, which enables men to foresee, not merely the consequences of causes now operating, but such distant events, as are wholly unconnected with any thing, which is passing in the present age. When, for in

stance, Isaiah foretold the coming of Christ, he foretold not only a very distant event, but an event, to which he could not possibly argue from the state of the Jews, at the time, when he wrote. A foreknowledge of such events can be obtained by no other means, than by an immediate communication from God himself.

Let us apply then the principles of interpretation, as explained in a former Lecture, to the two different cases of history and prophecy. When we interpret the words of a sacred historian, and consider those words, as signs to the reader of what was thought by the author, we may regard the historian himself as the author. But when we interpret a prophecy, we must distinguish between the author, and the writer. For when the knowledge of the writer is communicated to him by an immediate suggestion of the Holy Spirit, we must consider the Holy Spirit, as the author of that knowledge, which the prophet, as a writer, communicates to the reader. But then this knowledge might be communicated to the prophet in two different ways, either of which lay within the reach of Almighty power. The understanding of the prophet might be opened in a supernatural manner, so as to give him an insight into future events, while the record of those events, or the mode of committing them to writing, was left entirely to himself. In this case, though the prophecy has the Holy Spirit for its author, yet the words of the

prophecy are the words of the prophet. And if the prophet was the author of the words, those words must be signs to us of what was thought by the prophet. On the other hand, the words also, as well as the things signified by the words, might have been communicated to the prophet. In this case he was the mere instrument of communication to the reader; and the Holy Spirit must then be regarded as the author, as well with respect to the words, as with respect to the things. But whether the words were chosen by the prophet, or chosen by the Holy Spirit, the principle, on which they were chosen, must in either case have been the same. In either In either case, the choice of them must have depended on the connexion, which the usage of the Hebrew language had established between words, and the things signified by those words. If they had not been so chosen, they could not have been signs to the reader of what was thought by the author, whether we refer them to the prophet, or refer them to the Holy Spirit. Whoever was the author of a passage, which we propose to interpret, we must conclude, that he used his words in such senses, as he supposed would be ascribed to them by his readers. For if he used them in other senses, he would not inform, but mislead. Consequently, whether we interpret prophecy, on the supposition that the words were chosen by the prophet, or interpret prophecy on the supposition that the words were chosen by the Holy Spirit, we must on

either supposition apply the same rules of interpretation.

After these general remarks on the interpretation of prophecy, let us proceed to the particular consideration of the prophecies, which relate to the Messiah. Various reasons may be assigned for selecting these prophecies, as subjects of our special attention. In the first place, they are more important, than all other prophecies put together. Whether we can discover in the writings of the Hebrew prophets a description of the events which are passing in the present age, is a question of little moment. But the prophecies relating to the Messiah are of such importance, that they affect the very truth of our religion. And in the next place, an inquiry into those prophecies includes the consideration of almost every thing which relates to prophecy in general. It includes the questions of primary senses, and secondary senses, of prophecy. It includes also the question, which has been so much agitated under the name of accommodation. When we examine therefore the prophecies, which relate to the Messiah, we examine every question of real interest in the subject of prophecy at large.

Let us begin with an inquiry into that connexion, which subsists between the truth of our religion, and the prophecies relating to the Messiah. It is evident from the writings of the New Testament, that both our Saviour and his Apostles appealed to the proph