Jews when speaking Chaldee, Chaldee discourse; to Jews and Gentiles, when both could read and understand Greek, Greek discourse. Why? For the simple and most cogent of all reasons, viz., that what was revealed might be understood. But if the common laws of interpretation were not applicable to what was said, then of course it could not be understood. But inasmuch as the whole tenor of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures shows that the usual laws of language are observed, we must have some new and special revelation in order to authorize us to believe, that the Bible is to be exempted from these laws. Or if a part is to be interpreted by the usual laws of exegesis, and a part to be exempted from them, who will show us where the line of distinction is to be drawn between these two very diverse portions of the divine word? No one has yet solved this question. The mode of proceeding in respect to the vлóvоia has been, that every one "has done what was right in his own eyes." But are we indeed left in such a condition as this? Are we, after all, left in the dark; and this too, when we are launched on a boundless ocean without rudder or compass?

There must be some very important purposes to be answered by occult Scripture, if it be indeed true that it is in and of itself occult. Most readily do I concede, for my own experience teaches me every day, that many portions of Scripture are in a measure occult to me. But why? Merely because I am not so familiar with the original languages of Scripture and the objects there referred to, that the bare reading or hearing of it will suffice to make me understand it. It is occult to me, merely and only because I am wanting in knowledge appropriate to the right understanding of it. But was it so dark originally, to those who were addressed by the sacred writers? How can we credit this? The prophets were preachers in part. In

deed their main business was preaching. Prediction, in the strict sense of the word, belongs to but quite a subordinate part of their works. Was their preaching then intelligible? I need not stop to prove this; for the bare statement of the case does of itself make it incontrovertible. God does not mock men by addressing them in an unknown language, and then making them responsible for disobedience to his commands delivered in that language. The preaching of the prophets must have been intelligible to their contemporaries, in the same manner as well-composed gospel-sermons are now intelligible to the great mass of the Christian community among us. It was doubtless true in ancient times, as it is now, that there were some individuals too ignorant to comprehend all which the prophets uttered in their sermons; still it was then as it is now, i. e. the language of preaching must have been intelligible to all intelligent people.

If now we could in all respects place ourselves in the condition of those who were originally addressed by the sacred writers, we should then understand at once nearly every thing in the Scriptures without any difficulty; just as easily as we now understand religious instructions from our pulpits. All the dictionaries, grammars, commentaries, and learned exegetical essays of our libraries might at once be dispensed with; at all events we should need them no more than we need Lowth's English Grammar, and Johnson's Dictionary, in order to understand our common mother tongue.

So far, I think, all my readers will be ready to agree with me. When God addresses men, in order to instruct, or reprove, or console, he will of course speak what is intelligible.

But there is another and somewhat different view, which is sometimes taken of various predictions of the Old

Testament, and also of the New. This is, as its abettors allege, that they are, from the nature of the case, not only somewhat obscure, but are in fact, i. e. they were originally, designed to be obscure. Not only are many of them clothed in language which is highly figurative, but the diction is even of design enigmatical. God, as it is alleged, had undoubtedly a definite meaning in his own mind, which he attached to the language that was employed, but this meaning was designedly veiled from men in general, and sometimes even from the prophets themselves.

That, when the Holy Spirit inspired the prophets and led them to utter predictions, he himself attached a wider and fuller and more definite extent of meaning to the words employed, than the prophets did or could, I cannot doubt. All the future was perfectly known to the Spirit of God. It is, indeed, an easy matter to illustrate this. When Newton or La Place used the word sun, it recalled to their minds all the astronomical views of that luminary which they had acquired by study; while the peasant, who employs the same word, means only the apparent luminary of the skies which rises and sets and scatters light and warmth over all the earth. But if Newton or La Place were to converse with any persons destitute of astronomical knowledge, they would of course employ the word sun only in a sense intelligible to them. On any other ground they could not expect to be understood.

Like to this, now, must be the case in regard to prophetic revelation. If God reveals the future to men, then he must speak so as to be understood. The things suggested by the words employed, are, beyond all question, understood by him incomparably better than they can be by men. But the question before us is, not what knowledge God possesses, but, what has he designed to reveal? Now if he employs words as the medium of a revelation

respecting the future, then those words are to be interpreted by the ordinary rules of language, or else there is of course no revelation made by them. An occult sense here

is of course no sense at all.

Put the case now, for example, that Rev. XII. was unintelligible to those whom John addressed, and of course is so to us; then what was the object in writing Rev. XII.? Certainly not to reveal any thing to the church then, or since; for, on the ground taken, nothing is revealed. Of what use then are such predictions, (if we may apply such a misnomer to them), to the church of Christ? Surely they can have been of no use, thus far. For what purpose then was the Apocalypse written? If we may follow the suggestions of the book, in all parts of it, it was written to encourage and console Christians in the midst of severe trials and fiery persecutions to console them with the certain prospect of the triumphs of the church over all her enemies. But what consolation or what instruction could be derived from those parts of the book, which were intelligible neither to John himself, nor to any of his readers? None-none! What shall we say then? Has God spoken for no purpose? Or has he spoken for a particular purpose, and yet in such a way as not at all to answer that purpose? I cannot venture on such positions.

But here the subject is wont to take a new turn, which leads us to the second topic proposed for discussion.

3. PROPHECY NOT INTELLIGIBLE UNTIL IT IS FULFILLED.

There are not a few prophecies respecting which we are told, that God has a meaning which is attached to the language employed, although it has not yet been developed. When the events come to pass to which the prophecy relates,

then, and not till then, shall we be able to understand the words of the prediction.

I have found this sentiment echoed and re-echoed so often among expositors of the prophecies, even by such enlightened men as Hengstenburg, and Tholuck too, that I have been forced upon an examination of its claims to our credit. It has become, with many, a kind of universal menstruum, in which all the difficulties of the prophecies are solved. When we get to the utmost limits of our knowledge respecting them, then we are warned to include all the rest within the domain of hallowed secrecy. In fact, some even lay claim to credit for piety, in such an unreserved submission, as they deem it, to the divine will. Happy do some count the lot of those, who merely wonder, in such cases, at "the ways of God which are past finding out." How comfortable moreover it is, when we can not only cover over the faults of our imperfect knowledge in a way so creditable, but also dispense with all future effort and trouble, which would result from pursuing inquiries into the dark domain of the Scripture!

All the attention which I have bestowed on these views, so common among one class of interpreters, has never enabled me to see or feel the justice or propriety of them. Let us now suppose a case for the sake of illustration. John, we will say, has uttered many things in the Apocalypse, which will never be understood until they are fulfilled. Let it be, then, that 2000 years after he has written his book those things are to be fulfilled. The first question that we naturally ask, is: To what purpose did John write those predictions? During 2000 years they have been, or will be, by concession, neither more nor less than a dead letter. The church of course is neither admonished, nor instructed, nor comforted. Why then were they written? Was it to show that God can move in a mysterious way,