some of them were made to serve another purpose also, yet to the Appendix. Christian this is apparently the sole purpose. As information, they E. were useful to those to whom they were delivered; but as evidence Use of only, to us for whom they are fulfilled. But, then, in order to be Prophecy. evidence on which Christ's identity with the promised Messiah is proved, their fulfilment in Christ must be left to be recognised by our natural faculties. Otherwise, the appeal to the prophecies as evidence would be idle. For their fulfilment, instead of being considered as proofs, must be considered as a matter to be proved. They thus become a dead weight in the evidence of Christianity, instead of one of the supports. In short, if the New Testament Scriptures had comprehended amongst its uses the application of prophecy, we should have believed its fulfilment on the evidence of the New Testament writers, and not, as was designed, believed in Christianity on the evidence of that fulfilment. This principle seems to be what St. Peter intends, in his Second Epistle, (chap. i. 20,) where he remarks, that "no Scripture is of private interpretation." The Greek is ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως, which is not literally rendered by "private interpretation," the term idías naturally implying something peculiar or proper to that of which the writer is speaking, and that is go¶nτeiα yea‡ãs. 5 The apostle had been reminding those to whom he was writing, that their faith rested not on philosophical fables, but on the evidence of eye-witnesses, who saw Christ and his miracles, and heard the voice that declared him to be the beloved Son of God. He then adds, καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον, ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτε προσέχοντες, ὡς λύχνῳ φαίνοντι ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ, ἕως οὗ ἡμέρα διαυγάση, καὶ φωσφόρος ἀνατείλη ἂν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν· τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες, ὅτι πᾶσα προφητεία γραφῆς, ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται, οὐ γὰρ θελήματι ἀνθρώπων ἠνέχθη ποτὲ προφητεία, ἀλλ ̓ ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι ἐλάλησαν οἱ ἅγιοι Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι. Now by the expression ἔχομεν Beßaιóregov, &c. it is clear, as Wetstein observes on the passage, that the apostle cannot mean to call prophecy a more certain evidence than the sensible manifestations which he had been before mentioning: but that the construction is ἔχομεν τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον BEBAιÓTεgov. We (in opposition to former ages) possess the prophecies, rendered more sure evidence; converted by their fulfilment into grounds of belief corresponding to the manifestations and miracles before mentioned. This is the old interpretation put on the passage (see Wetstein as above referred to; who cites likewise a passage, Josephus, B. III. C. 5, where the word ßeßatóregos is used somewhat similarly). We then possess prophecy, according to St. Peter, converted into sure evidence; and to this evidence he bids us attend, bearing uppermost in our minds that circumstance, on which the 5 Nov. Test. in loco. Appendix. E. Use of character of prophecy as evidence depends, viz. its development by the But, then, it may be urged, do not the New Testament writers It may be added, that we can on no other principle account for the inspired writers not being corrected in the equivocal use of an expression, which could not fail to mislead. It has been asserted by reference to the Rabbinical writers, that the phrase "that it might be fulfilled," and the like, was the customary form of quotation with the Jews, when no miraculous fulfilment was intended. Now it seems probable, if this be the case, that many of the quotations which are so introduced by the New Testament writers, are accordingly mere accommodations, and were not considered by the writers themselves as prophecies. The vague meaning of the word prophet may perhaps have made Christians in after times less willing to take this view of it; because it might seem, that what was said to be written by a prophet, must be meant for a prophecy. But the term prophet included teacher, as well as predicter, and prophecy, teaching, as well as foretelling. If then we substitute the word teacher for predicter, we shall perhaps be better reconciled with the suggestion that assigns many of the quotations of prophecy to the class of illustrations. The Jews had no literature but their Bible, and would of course use it for all purposes of literature. But still granting all this to be true, (which I really think it may be,) is it not certain that the sacred writers, if the application of prophecy were part of their inspired work, would not have left us in doubt, when they meant to point out a prophecy, and when to quote by way of illustration. If the controlling influence of the Holy Spirit Appendix. extended to this point, could the writers have been allowed to use E. the same expression in both cases, so as to leave us doubtful in Use of every case? Of course, if this view of the application of prophecy be correct, the same reasoning will to a certain extent hold good with respect to the application of the types of the Old Testament. To a certain extent, because, like verbal prophecies, the types had other uses besides that of being convertible into evidence by their fulfilment. As verbal prophecy often furnished previous information, so types, or symbolical and histrionic prophecy, moulded the people who employed them to habits of mind, which rendered the truths typified more congenial and more intelligible than they otherwise would have been. This at least was the proper effect of them. But, then, considered as prophecies fulfilled, the principle which applies to verbal prophecy, will of course apply here also. Another scruple which may be felt in admitting this view is this: Are not the prophecies and types used by the inspired writers as grounds for doctrine? and of course they must then at least be considered as infallible in their application. Supposing this granted, it would not affect the character of their quotations in any other case; but even this I should hardly admit. The assertions, indeed, which the apostles maintain, if involving matter of faith or morals, must be held infallible; else there is no rule of faith and conduct in Scripture: but it is no necessary adjunct, that all the means which they adopt to prove the assertion are likewise inspired means. They were assisted indeed in the knowledge and interpretation of prophecy; but so they were in the gift of eloquence and of languages; and yet it did not follow that their eloquence was therefore faultless, or their knowledge of a language always correct. These were aids given them, not resembling the endowments of one possessed by a spirit, but like the improvement of the natural faculties of men who remained still free agents, and still responsible, and therefore fallible beings. The inspired teacher might plead feebly, or he might reason weakly; for what God provided was the point to be proved, and the materials of proof, not the use of them. He might use prophecy or miracle amiss; for it was the prophecy or miracle that God gave; in the use of these instruments He only assisted them; and surely no more was needed. As long as the attested record of the miracles remains, as long as those very prophecies are in our hands, we are judges of the application of them, and it is intended that we should See Inquiry into the Proofs, Nature, and Extent of Inspiration." Fellowes, 1831. be so. Prophecy. Appendix. F. John the NOTE [F.] PAGE 131. 66 Several conjectures have been offered by commentators on the real object of John Baptist's sending his disciples to Christ with so strange a question as, Art thou He that should come, or look we for another?" Some have ventured to attribute it to a temporary feeling of despondency and discontent in the Baptist, because that he, the Christ's forerunner, was left to pine in prison without any Divine interposition; and they interpret the question, as if it were an expostulation with Jesus. The view most commonly acquiesced in is, that the embassy was contrived for the satisfaction of John's disciples, and not of John himself; but if so, would he have answered them, "Go and tell John what things you have heard and seen, &c. ?-if so, would John have sent only two of his disciples? Some, again, have had recourse to critical niceties and refinements, such as, that John had seen the Spirit descend on Jesus, agreeably to the Divine communication made to him, but did not know whether it abode on him, which was likewise in the description divinely communicated; and that for his satisfaction in this latter particular it was, the disciples were sent." Mr. Benson, in his Hulsean Lectures, has revived the old interpretation given in the questions and answers which are placed among the works of Justin Martyr, and supposes that the Baptist's object was to ascertain whether the person of whose miracles he heard so much, were the same with Him of whose Messiahship he had formerly received such undoubted proof, and to whom he had borne testimony." I will not pretend to decide certainly against any one of their conflicting views; only, I cannot but observe that they all proceed on one common principle, itself by no means unquestionable-that John Baptist's faith could not have failed him. He had, it is true, been intrusted with the office of proclaiming the Christ's coming; had received evidence that Jesus was He; and had publicly avowed his being satisfied with that evidence. But how many misgivings marked the course of the apostles themselves, after they had confessed Him? Not to mention the repeated instances to be found in their earlier intercourse with Him, on his apprehension they all forsook Him and fled. On the day of His promised return to them, they scrupled not to avow to a supposed stranger the disappointment of their trust, that it was He who should have redeemed Israel;" and one refused to credit the resurrection on any evidence, ever so strong, except the evidence of his own senses; declaring, that he must first handle Him with his hands," as well as see Him and hear his voice. And yet, his apostles were always with Him, and the impression of miraculous evidence was in their case continually renewed. John Baptist had not this advantage; why should he 66 6 See Sermons by the Rev. Henry Owen, Serm. VII. then not be troubled with the same weak scruples and misgivings, Appendix. when he perceived that the course which the ministry of Jesus was F.. taking, was so greatly at variance with that which the learned and John the the nation at large, with himself doubtless, had looked for in the Baptist's Embassy to Messiah, and regarded as part of the evidence in support of his Jesus. pretensions? John, it is true, had miraculous assurance that Jesus was the Christ, and had submitted his mind to the influence of this evidence: but what then? were not even the apostles so circumstanced; not to mention the many who are recorded as having gone back and walked no more" with Jesus, after having become his disciples in consequence of what they heard and saw? 66 It is an important truth, that the strongest possible moral evidence requires perpetually either to be followed up, or to be renewed and refreshed in some way, in order to be perpetually influential on human conduct. In abstract reasoning, we may prove a proposition once for all, and rest for ever after content, and on every occasion be ready to employ it with the same liveliness of conviction that it is true. Time does not necessarily impair the impression. It is put up in the mind for ever, like an imperishable document, to which we may refer with the same facility to-day and twenty years hence. But in the case of practical truth, i.e. truth that is designed to influence our conduct our impressions of it need perpetual renewal and refreshment; else, although our conduct may continue the same, it is, after a time, not the result of the same principle, but of custom. And herein lies the great difference between those two courses of conduct which are distinguished by a great heathen moralist as proceeding the one δι εθος, and the other δι ηθος. Virtuous and religious habits are customs, but not mere custom; differing from these latter by the original principle (which caused the custom) never being lost sight of. For a Christian to act always from Christian motives, it is quite requisite that he should again and again renew his assurance of the truth of that Revelation which furnishes the motives. In the case of our Lord's immediate followers, this was effected by the repeated display of miracles; and if John needed this revival of the influence of evidence as well as others, (and why should he not?) his absence and imprisonment will readily account for doubts and misgivings such as would prompt an embassy to Jesus. I do not say that such doubts and misgivings were unavoidable; for he might have renewed the evidence once given him, by reflecting on all its bearings; but they were at least as natural and excusable as the doubts and misgivings of the apostles; and were accordingly, like theirs, most promptly relieved by the Saviour. In prison, his end, apparently, as it was really, approaching, harassed by the natural misgivings of human infirmity, increased possibly by the desponding and discontented suggestions of his own followers, he might have sent this message to Christ, before his last farewell charge to them; in order, that, with |