in the Old Testament, which are in some respects sages involved in great perplexity and obscurity. Obscurity in these cases may arise from a great variety of causes. In the first place, the books of the Old Testament were written in a distant period of time, and in a language which has long since ceased to be used by any nation or society of men. They were written too in circumstances, which can be known to us but very imperfectly at best. Farther, the Authors of the Old Testament, especially of those parts which contain prophecy and poetry, wrote in a manner exceedingly diverse from any thing which is common among us. Frequently, and sometimes with great abruptness, they pass from one subject to another, without giving the least notice of the transition. This, however contrary to common usage at the present time, must be considered as having been perfectly natural in that state of mental excitement, to which the inspired writers were raised. Who can suppose that a mind, elevated by divine influence, like the mind of Isaiah, or the mind of David in some of the Psalms, or of John in the Apocalypse, could, in the movement of its thoughts, have been subject to the same rules of rhetoric or logic, as the minds of literary men at this day? We are then to be very cautious in concluding, that a passage in the Old Testament was not intended to be understood as a prophecy, because it is attended with obscurity; or because it is not introduced, as a prophecy, formally and distinctly, as we should expect it would be at the present day; or because it stands closely connected with what relates to different subjects. Nor are we to conclude, that a passage in the Old Testament is not a real prediction, because its accomplishment is nowhere mentioned either in those Scriptures which were subse

quently written, or in any other history to which we can have access. The history of such accomplishment may be brought to light at some future time; or it may have been lost beyond recovery. But surely, our ignorance, however occasioned, can make no difference as to the truth or the signification of God's word, or the occurrence of events corresponding with it. Before attempting to judge on this point, we ought to attend carefully to the remarks above made; and we ought above all to be sure, that we have a familiar acquaintance with the mode of writing which was in use among the Hebrews, especially with the peculiarities of their prophetic style, and also with that whole compass of events in divine providence, which stands related to prophecy. While we have but an imperfect acquaintance with this important branch of sacred science, as is likely to be always the case with us, we are not to be surprised, if we find ourselves greatly perplexed with the difficulties of the subject now under consideration.*

But it is said, that many passages are apparently quoted, as predictions, actually fulfilled under the Christian dispensation, which, after all, we can by no means regard as predictions, unless we give up ourselves to the wildest absurdities of mystical interpretation. The question to be considered, is, whether there is in reality any thing in the manner of quoting from the Old Testament here referred to, which disproves the inspiration of those who wrote the New.

The first remark I have to offer on this subject, is, that the manner of quoting, now referred to, does not necessarily imply, that the passage quoted is a prediction, or that it is regarded as such by the writer who quotes

*See Note A.

it. The phrase, iva ñiŋgwoŋ, “ that it might be fulfilled," and other phrases of the like kind, are indeed used, and very properly, to introduce a real prediction which is accomplished; but not for this purpose only. They are often used, and with equal propriety,-I say not in the way of accommodation, because that word, unhappily, has been employed by certain writers to express a doctrine, which I think utterly inconsistent with the character of Christ and his apostles,-but, to denote a mere comparison of similar events,—to signify that the thing spoken of answers to the words of a prophet, or that his words may justly be applied to it; and so so may relate to what was said by an inspired writer in describing a character which formerly appeared, or in relating an event which formerly took place, as well as to a real prediction. Accordingly, we might take a passage, where it is said, such a thing was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, or that what was spoken by the prophet was fulfilled, and might, in many stances, express the same thing by such phrases as these; the declaration of the prophet had an accomplishment in what took place; or his words may be aptly applied to it, or they very properly express it; or his observation is true in reference to the present case; or this thing is like what the prophet describes*.

in

According to this view, the passages referred to are cited in the way of illustration. And a thorough attention to the subject will convince you, that this mode of illustrating and impressing the truth, was very common at the time the New Testament was written,-and is indeed common at the present time, and is obviously proper at all times. Now surely, it can be no objection

* See Note B.

against the inspiration of the New Testament writers, that, in their narrations and instructions, they made use of the common methods of illustration. You might as well object to their inspiration, because they made use of the language then in common use. If men are led by the Holy Spirit to give instruction, they will be led to do it in the most suitable manner. But what is that manner of

instruction, which is the most suitable? It is that which experience has proved convenient, and which practice has made common; that, in which we employ the forms of speech, the figures, the modes of reasoning and of illustration, which others around us most frequently employ, and which are likely to convey our meaning most clearly, and impress it most deeply.-If the writers of the New Testament did nothing more than this; there can surely be no objection from this quarter against their being inspired.

Now is it not the almost universal practice of good writers, to make quotations from previous writers, for the purpose of giving a varied and more impressive, illustration of what they would teach? If there is any book, which is held in high repute, on account of its antiquity, the name of its author, or the excellence of its contents; from such a book quotations are frequently made. And they are made, not merely to prove a doctrine which is doubted or denied, but to give additional force to truths commonly received, and to obligations commonly acknowledged. Nor can any one doubt, that quotations from such a book are well adapted to produce such an effect. By means of them, the particular truths affirmed become associated with circumstances, which impart to them a new interest, and a higher authority.

These remarks apply with peculiar force to the writers of the New Testament, with regard to their practice of quoting from the Old Testament. All the circumstances which can be supposed, in any case, to influence writers to quote freely from others, were combined in their case. In the first place, they held the Scriptures of the Old Testament in the highest reverence. They were taught by the prophets, and by Christ himself, to regard those Scriptures as of divine authority— as the word of God-the guide of their life-the basis of all true religion. What stronger reason than this could they possibly have, for making continual citations from those Scriptures?

Another circumstance which must naturally have influenced them to quote abundantly from the books of the Old Testament, was, that they had so few books 'besides. And this is connected with another circumstance; namely; that they were in the habit of consulting their sacred books so constantly, and with such earnest and devout attention, that they became thoroughly and very intimately acquainted with them. The historical facts, the doctrines, precepts, promises, threats, and the language in which all these were. conveyed; the metaphors, similes, allegories, types, and all the peculiarities of style, found in the Scriptures, were perfectly familiar to the writers of the New Testament, and were wrought, as elements, into the babits of their minds. They imbibed not only the general spirit of their sacred books, but the very mode of thinking, and the mode of speaking, there exhibited. Whenever they undertook to treat any subject, they seemed immediately to recur to passages in the Old Testament, which either treated the same subject, or would supply some