general and abstract denunciations of woe, but with piercing sagacity, derived from natural genius, from the assiduous contemplation of the future, and from the influence of the Divine spirit on their minds, they undertook to point out the particular events which would happen in the future; that is, they not merely promised or threatened, but predicted. More or less of the same practice has prevailed among political and religious reformers from that time to this. But it prevailed in a remarkable degree among the Hebrew prophets, so that their writings constitute a distinct and peculiar class. They believed that they had an insight into the future, which the human understanding, without the aid of the Divine spirit, would not have afforded them. The popular faith supported them in their general claims, though their particular messages were often rejected with incredulity, contempt, or persecution.

This I regard as a very important view of the nature of the predictions of the prophets. They belong to the category of motives with which the prophets urged upon their contemporaries the great objects of their mission, namely, that of keeping the people in a right political, moral, and religious condition. They are the application of the doctrine of an earthly retribution to the particular condition and circumstances of the community in the time of the prophet. See Is. i. 19, &c.; Jer. vii. 3, &c., xxi.

1-9.

The practical character and aim of the predictions in relation to the contemporaries of the prophet are also seen in those cases in which evil is threatened Israel from foreign nations, with which they were, or wished to be, in alliance. The design was to withdraw or deter Israel from impolitic alliances, dangerous to religion, by threatening evil or destruction from the nation from which the rulers were seeking aid, or the advantages of an alliance.

The same practical character and aim are evident in predictions of prosperity. The design was to keep the people in grateful dependence upon Jehovah; to inspire patient submission under the temporary chastisement or trials which were to end in good; to comfort and encourage them, so that, though humbled, they should never waver or doubt in regard to the benevolent designs of God toward the posterity of Abraham.

So in those predictions in which calamity or destruction is threatened to foreign nations, such as Egypt, Babylon, Tyre, &c., there is in general a practical object in reference to the people of God. It is to encourage them when foreign nations assume a threatening aspect; see Is. x. 5, &c., xxx. 27, &c. xxxi. 1, &c. Hab. ii.; partly to deter them from untheocratic alliances, Is xx. 5, &c., xxx. 3, &c.; partly to console them under the injustice and oppression which they have suffered, Is. xxi. 1, &c. xlvii.; Ezek. xxv. - xxxv.; Jer. 1., li.; and partly to make the people feel their dependence on Jehovah by exhibiting his righteous judgments.

From the nature of the case, the prophets could not be guided by the principle of retribution in predictions of prosperity and blessedness, so much as in predictions of woe. It is only in a very qualified sense that any people, much less so perverse a people as the Jewish is represented to have been, can be said to merit blessings from Jehovah. Still there is some regard to this principle, inasmuch as the prophets scarcely ever predict prosperity, unless it is preceded by righteousness. See Is. xliii. 25; Ezek. xxxvi. 25, &c. Sometimes the piety of the fathers, or promises made to the fathers, seem to be the grounds of predictions of prosperity. Is. xxxvii. 35; Mic. vii. 20. Hence it is that denunciations of woe are generally, and sometimes by a very rapid transition, followed by promises of peace, favor, and glory. See Amos ix. 11; Mic. iv. 1-10, and very numerous passages of the same kind elsewhere.

Thus it appears that the principle of an earthly retribution lies at the foundation of most of the predictions, but with some qualifications and limitations.

Another important remark is, that the prophets whose genuineness is undoubted, when they make definite predictions, introducing the names of persons, nations, cities, &c., keep within the sphere of human vision, and direct attention to those nations to which the vision of a Hebrew politician would naturally be directed. Their predictions are conformed to the political horizon of their time, and are definite and explicit in the same degree in which the circumstances of the time afford clear indications of coming events. Thus Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah bring chiefly to view the Assyrians. Isaiah mentions the Babylonians also, who

were in his day meditating a separation from the Assyrians. Later prophets, as Habakkuk, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, utter predictions relating to the Chaldeans who destroyed the Assyrian monarchy. Ezekiel even mentions the Scythians, under the names of Gog and Magog.

It is evident, not only that the preceding propositions are true, but also that in this way alone their predictions would be of any value, or have any influence with their contemporaries, the readers or hearers to whom they were addressed. Had the prophets predicted calamity as coming from a monarch of whose name they had never heard, or from nations beyond the sphere of Jewish knowledge or interest, or from nations which had little or no power to inflict injury upon them, it is plain that their predictions would have been disregarded and have been followed by no practical effects. They never predict calamity from very small or very remote nations, from which nothing was to be feared. Such predictions could have no more been expected to influence the Jews, than the prediction of destruction to our country at the present day from India or Japan could be expected to influence us. In order that their predictions might excite any interest, or produce any effect, it was necessary that they should have a certain degree of probability in the minds of the people.

I now come to the question how far the predictions of the prophets were verified by events, or fulfilled; and if fulfilled, whether in such a manner as to afford evidence of miraculous foreknowledge in the prophets.

Before the examination of particular cases, one or two preliminary observations are to be made. The prophets expressly state many of their predictions to be conditional, suspended on the conduct of those whom they addressed. This is implied in the principle on which most of them are founded, namely, the principle of Divine retribution. See Jer. xviii. 7-10; Jer. xxvi. 16-19. It follows, then, that every case of the non-fulfilment of a prediction is not a proof of error on the part of the prophet; because the prediction was conditional, and there may have been a reformation in the people which averted the predicted calamity.

On the other hand, every fulfilment of a prediction is not a proof of infallibility or miraculous foreknowledge Many events

may be predicted by human sagacity, meditating on the causes of events, and on the circumstances in which nations are placed. Such men as Edmund Burke, John Adams, and others, men of genius and sagacity, having their patriotic minds continually intent upon all the political signs in their horizon, have made very remarkable predictions. In order to prove miraculous foreknowledge, the event predicted must be clearly beyond the limits of human sagacity and calculation. In order to prove such foreknowledge, the event must also be fulfilled in the way and manner expected by the writer. For instance, if it should be now predicted that London is, at a future day, to be destroyed by the French, it would not be a miraculous fulfilment of the prediction, if, some centuries hence, that city should be destroyed by the Russians, or by the gradual operation of natural causes. It would be safe to predict of many cities that they would come to an end in some way, and some time or other.

How then was it with the predictions of the Hebrew prophets? Were they fulfilled in such a manner as to imply miraculous foreknowledge? The only way to arrive at a correct answer is to examine every particular prediction, and the circumstances under which it was made, in order to perceive what indications of the event might have been present to the mind of the writer, and, secondly, to examine history, to see how far events correspond to his language. Our limits will not allow us to examine all the predictions of the prophets. I will take two or three of the most remarkable, and endeavor to proceed without perverting the meaning of the prophetic writers, or falsifying the facts of history. Rationalistic interpretation, when employed in the interest of apologetic theology, ought to be at least as odious as when employed in the interest of physical or metaphysical philose hy. A prediction which will at once occur to the reader of the Scriptures is that against Babylon. It is found in Is. xiii., iv., xxi. 1–10, xl. - lxvi., and in Jer. 1., li. In Is. xiii. 17-11 we read:

"Behold I stir up against them the Medes,

Who make no account of silver,

And as to gold, they do not regard it.

Their bows shall strike down the young men,

And on the fruit of the womb they shall have no compas

Their eye shall not pity the children.

So shall Babylon, the glory of kingdoms
The proud ornament of the Chaldeans,

Be like Sodom and Gomorrah, which God overthrew

It shall never more be inhabited;

Nor shall it be dwelt in through all generations.

Nor shall the Arabian pitch his tent there,

Nor shall shepherds make their folds there.

But there shall the wild beasts of the desert lodge,

And owls shall fill their houses;

And ostriches shall dwell there,
And satyrs shall dance there.

Wolves shall howl in their palaces,

And jackals in their pleasant edifices.
Her time is near,

And her days shall not be prolonged."

In ch. xlv. 1, Cyrus is mentioned by name as the leader of the Medes and Persians against Babylon.

Now if this prediction, contained in what is called the Book of Isaiah, really proceeded from the prophet Isaiah, the son of Amos, it would present a somewhat difficult problem. For in that case it would have been written about two hundred years before the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, and at a time when the Medes could not have been regarded as dangerous to the Babylonian monarchy. At any rate, it could not have been foreseen by any human intelligence that Cyrus the Persian should lead the Medes against Babylon. If, therefore, it could be proved to satisfaction that this prediction was written about two hundred years before the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, it would be impossible to explain, on the ground of mere human intelligence, how Isaiah could have foreseen so much as he did respecting Cyrus and the Medes. But if miraculous knowledge be supposed, it would be equally difficult to explain how it was, that, in the most important particulars relating to this event, he was in error. The writer of the prediction, after the utmost allowance is made for figurative language, plainly supposed that Babylon would be totally destroyed by the Medes under Cyrus. Now the destruction of that great city has taken place. So far the prediction was fulfilled in some degree, as every one knows. But this destruction was not effected at the time, nor by the instruments, which the writer had in mind.