ence) suppose him to employ human language, having a perfect knowledge of all things, may connect with that language many ideas unknown to us, and in our present state not knowable to us. Still, what God knows in and of himself, is one thing; what he reveals, or designs to reveal, is quite another. Surely no one will say, that God undertakes to reveal to us that which we are incapable of knowing. To suppose this, would be virtually to impeach his wisdom, his paternal care, and even his perfect knowledge. When God speaks to men, it is that he may be understood by them; for on any other ground he does not truly speak to them.

It is not then all which is in his mind, that the words of Scripture are intended to designate. It is only so much as may be revealed; and if revealed by words, then those words must bear the sense which the usus loquendi gives them, or else no revelation is made by them.

When predictions of future and distant events are uttered, no words, it will be admitted, can of themselves describe all which appertains to those events. God indeed knows all; but he does not communicate, nor does he design to communicate, all his knowledge to men. To assume that a prophecy is designed to reveal all which the divine mind knows respecting the event predicted, is such an assumption as no reason nor laws of language can justify.

The question then comes fairly before us: How much does the Holy Spirit mean to convey, by the words of any particular prophecy? The answer is not difficult. God speaks by men, and for men. The prophets were inspired by the Holy Ghost. But why? In order that they might with certainty and authority give information respecting things past, present, or future. To give information necessarily presupposes, that they themselves possessed it.

If the Holy Spirit employs such a medium of communication, i. e. speaks through prophets, it is plainly in order that human language may be addressed to human beings. The language employed, therefore, means just what the writers designed it should mean. Every book is fully interpreted, when the exact mind of the writer is unfolded.

Were the prophets then omniscient, even when inspired? Plainly not. The Bible is full of evidence, that inspiration teaches only what pertains to religious truth and duty, not the arts and sciences. And even religious truth is not taught in a manner absolutely complete and perfect, but only relatively so. In our present state, we can only "know in part, and believe in part." "We see through a glass darkly." All that is now needed by us is revealed. So much, therefore, the prophets understood. But if they uttered words as mere automata, which they did not themselves understand, then they neither received nor imparted any revelation. What is unknown and not knowable, is surely no revelation.

I am well aware that I shall be met here with the allegation, that the Scriptures often represent the prophets as not understanding what they uttered, and therefore the meaning of their language, it is said, cannot be limited to what they meant to say. But although this has been often and confidently affirmed, I have never been able to satisfy myself that it is correct. The case of speaking in unknown tongues, as set forth in 1 Cor. XIV, is appealed to as conclusive in favor of the position just mentioned. But this will not sustain the appeal. In 1 Cor. 14: 4, “Paul tells us, that "he who speaketh in an unknown tongue, edifieth himself." If so, then surely he must himself understand what he says; for the same apostle tells us, that there is no edification in that which is not understood.

An appeal is also made to 1 Pet. 1: 11, 12, as declaring

that the prophets made diligent search, in order to understand what they themselves uttered. But I can find no such sentiment there. Peter says, first, that they prophesied respecting the gracious dispensation of the gospel; secondly, that 66 they searched what, and what manner of time (sis tiva noïov xaιgóv) the things would take place, which were the subject of revelation," i. e. when Christ would appear, and what would be the form and manner of his dispensation; thirdly, that in answer to their inquiries it was revealed to them, that only the distant future would be the period of development. In all this there is nothing which declares or even intimates, that the prophets did not understand what they had uttered. The passage only shows, that they were anxious to know the time and manner of the new dispensation. These, at first, were not revealed; and even afterwards, only so much was disclosed as enabled them to see, that a distant period was reserved for the Messianic development, so that it could not take place in their day.

In the books of Daniel, of Zechariah, and of Revelation, which are full of symbols, the case not unfrequently occurs, where the prophet does not at first know the meaning of the symbols. Nothing could be more natural than this. But in each of these books, be it well remembered, the prophet is represented as being accompanied by his angel-interpreter, who explains what was obscure in the symbol. Why this? Why was not the symbol left for future explanation, to be made at some distant period?

In one case, Dan. 12: 8, the prophet declares that "he heard and understood not." But to what does this relate? Evidently to what was suggested to his mind by the declarations in v. 7, where it is said, that the end of the wonders shall be "after a time, times, and a half," subsequent to the complete scattering of the holy people. Daniel now

does not inquire, like the angel in v. 6, how long it shall be to the end of the wonders named, but he asks what the end of those things would be, i. e. to what state or condition of things they will lead, or, in other words, what will be the sequel. That such is the meaning of his question, is evident from the nature of the answer given to it by the angel, in vs. 9—13. The declaration of Daniel, then, has respect only to consequences connected with the events predicted. So extraordinary were the events, that he was astonished at them and filled with wonder. Very naturally does he say, therefore, that he does not know what they can mean; a declaration the like of which we are always prone to make, whenever any thing extraordinary fills us with consternation and surprise.

These are the most striking examples to which appeal is made, in order to show that the prophets were sometimes themselves ignorant of what they uttered. I am not able to see, how any sound argument can be built upon them. The prophets might be, and very often were, ignorant of either the time, or the manner, or the circumstances, or the consequences, etc., of things or events which they predicted. No one can for a moment doubt this; for almost all prophecies are the mere outlines of future occurrences, not minute likenesses. With the exception of some two or three passages, even the Messianic prophecies in general are of this character. How then can we reasonably suppose, that more was revealed to the prophets than they have expressed? I know of no proof that can be adduced, which will show that they professed any more knowledge of such events than they have developed. To attribute to the prophets all the knowledge of the gospel-dispensation which may now be acquired, would not be walking in the path in which Jesus led the way, when he declared, in reference to the ancient dispensation: "No man hath seen

God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him, John 1: 18. Nor would it be giving due heed to the declaration of Paul (2 Tim. 1: 10), who says, that "life and immortality are brought to light through the gospel." And if the prophets themselves possessed only a partial knowledge of the things in question, even when inspired, surely it was not designed that those to whom they originally addressed the prophecies should be more enlightened than their inspired teachers. What the prophets did know, they have communicated; and they have done in this case the same thing which they have done in all other cases, where they have made any revelation, i. e. they have spoken in an intelligible manner what they designed to speak.

То say that many things are dark to us which they have uttered, is only alleging our own ignorance, and is not, and cannot be, any proof that they did not speak intelligibly to their contemporaries. To say that we may now understand, better than they did, the things or occurrences which they predicted, is saying nothing to the present purpose. It is beyond all doubt true, that the man who visits London can better understand a description of that metropolis, than one who never saw it. It is beyond a doubt true, that, had we been present at any of the scenes recorded in ancient or in modern history, we could enter with more interest and intelligence into the meaning of faithful narratives respecting them. But subsequent knowledge, acquired by readers at the time when events predicted are or have been developed, although it may greatly aid them in readily understanding the predictions, can never be the rule of exegesis. Any writing means that, and only that, which the author designed it should mean. If the author of any prophecy, then, had a meaning, (and who will deny this), we cannot help believing that he designed to impart