common discourse, in prayer, and in the more formal statement and vindication of divine truth, we frequently use the language of Scripture, either in the way of exact quotation, or by quoting part of a passage, or part of several passages, just as the case requires. And Christians do this very much in proportion to the reverence they feel for the Bible, and the diligence with which they study it. Just take such authors as Owen, Watts, Doddridge, John Newton, and Edwards, and see how considerable a proportion of their writings consists of partial or entire quotations from Scripture, or allusions to it."

ge.

"This practice of quoting from the Old Testament for the neral purpose of illustration, is not only proper in itself, but is, as I have already hinted, perfectly conformable to common practice. What is more common at the present day, than to illustrate the truths and duties of religion by a familiar citation of texts from the Scriptures? We do this sometimes in a more formal, and sometimes in a less formal manner. When the case seems to require it, we quote a particular passage exactly, naming the book, chapter, and verse. In other cases, we quote the substance and general sense of a passage in a condensed form, without regard to the exact words of Scripture. And sometimes we make an intelligible allusion to a part of Scripture which is well understood, without actually quoting either the words, or the sense. Thus, we say, such a view of the subject is according to what Christ taught his disci ples of the character of those who are blessed; or according to the direction he gave respecting the treatment of a brother who offends; or according to the final commission he gave his apostles; or according to Paul's account of justification by faith. Or we say, that Paul's account of the strife between the flesh and the spirit applies to the case of every believer; taking it for granted that every one recollects what that account is. It is then perfectly evident, that the liberties which the New Testament writers use, as to the manner of making quotations from the Old Testament, are by no means greater than common practice sanctions. And it is evident too, that they are liberties of the same general character with those which we think proper at the present day."

These quotations will be sufficient to show clearly, how Dr. Woods understands this matter; but to be fully possessed of his arguments and illustrations, it will be requisite to read the whole lecture, which will richly repay the time and trouble of a careful perusal. His reference to the method so much in vogue, of making citations from the classic authors, when their words can be accommodated to express in any degree our meaning happy, and serves to shed light on the subject.

But after all that has been said so ingeniously, and so plausibly, in defence of this mode of understanding the quotations from the Old Testament, we confess that we have our misgivings. We are not prepared, however, at present, to enter into a full discussion of the subject; neither would our prescribed limits admit of it. But we will remark, in passing, that if the form of quotation, mentioned above, does not signify that the writer proposed to cite a prediction, which he supposed was then fulfilled, no words can be used which would certainly convey this idea. That frequent allusion should often be made to the language of the Old Testament, or, that the very words of Scripture should sometimes be used, when the writer only intended to apply them for illustration, is not difficult to be conceived; but when the sacred writer says, "All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by his prophet," or, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets," to suppose nothing more was intended, but that the words of the prophets have some correspondence with the events now recorded, is, to say the least, a construction not the most obvious and natural. Out of a thousand readers of these passages who had never heard of any difficulty, we believe, that there would not be found one who would not conclude, that the evangelist was quoting a real prediction, or what he considered such.

But again, if this solemn form of citation does not uniformly mean that a prophecy was referred to, which was now supposed to be fulfilled, we would respectfully ask, how we are to know when the writers of the New Testament are applying prophecy to events then passing? Or if this form of expression can be set aside in one case, so that it shall not be considered as referring to a real prediction, why may it not in every case where it is used? The importance of this inquiry did not escape the sagacious mind of the author of these Lectures; in the appendix he has devoted several closely printed pages to an answer. But we profess, that after perusing what is here written, we still remain unsatisfied. The first method of determining whether a passage cited is a prediction, is, by the general rules of hermeneutics, as given by such men as Ernesti, Morus, Storr, Horne, &c. And we are directed "to examine the text as it stands in the Old Testament," and having by the proper rules ascertained, that the text in question was meant to be a prediction, we may then "come to the quotation in the New Testament, prepared to believe that the

writer designedly introduces it as a prediction of the event to which he applies it; not indeed, because it is introduced by any of the formulas which are used, as they equally respect all sorts of quotations; but because an examination of the original writer shows, that he meant it as a prediction." The author then proceeds to give directions how we should proceed in doubtful cases, and illustrates his rules by a reference to Psalm xvi. 10. where, although we cannot, from the words of David taken alone, ascertain whether he meant to utter a prediction or not; yet from the explanation given by Peter and Paul, (Acts xiii. 35. 37.-ii. 25. 31) it appears with undoubted evidence, that it was indeed such.

The illustration of the case here adduced is entirely satisfactory; but there are other cases of quotations, in determining the true character of which, all the rules given would be of very little use; for the difficulty is not, whether a prophecy was intended to be uttered, but concerning its fulfilment. And to illustrate our meaning, we shall refer to that most important citation from Isaiah vii. 14. which is the first instance of quotation in the New Testament. Now, when we turn to the passage as it stands in the Old Testament, we find that the writer did mean to utter a prediction; for the words were spoken by Jehovah to Ahaz, to inform him what sign he was about to give; but when we examine the context, we find that there is nothing which would lead any one to suppose that an event very remote in time was meant; much less, that the words were intended to predict the miraculous birth of the Messiah. So far from this, they seem to be limited in their fulfilment to a short period from that time. The whole passage is this, "Moreover, the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, hear ye now, O ye house of David; is it a small thing for you to weary men, but you will weary my God also? Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign, BEHOLD A VIRGIN SHALL CONCEIVE, AND BEAR A SON, AND SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.' Now, as we cannot learn from these words, examined alone, that they were intended to refer to the Messiah, let us turn to the quotation as

given in the New Testament. But here we have no new light; for although Matthew uses a formula in citing them which would lead us at first sight, to suppose, that he intended to apply the prediction of Isaiah to the conception and birth of Jesus Christ; yet, according to the rule of Dr. Woods, we can infer nothing from this solemn form of quotation. How, then, shall we determine whether this prediction is correctly applied, or meant to be applied by the evangelist to the important event which had then occurred; or whether he only uses the language of the prophet by way of accommodation; (for we must use this word to express the idea, notwithstanding Dr. Woods' objections to it) because they were suited to express the fact to which he applies them, though not meant to signify any such thing by the original writer. And not long since, while perusing the learned and orthodox work of Dr. John Pye Smith, entitled "TESTIMONY TO THE MESSIAH," we were startled upon finding that this distinguished writer and able advocate for the ancient faith, concedes, that there is here no prophecy of the Messiah, but that the language of the Old Testament is used by the evangelist in the way of accommodation. And it is asserted in a late number of the SPIRIT OF THE PILGRIMS, that Professor Stuart, of Andover, only admits, "that the declaration of the Lord by the prophet, in this place, is a type or symbol of the birth of Messiah, but not a prediction of that event." We are free to confess, that this single fact has filled us with doubts respecting the validity of the modern principles of interpretation, as it relates to citations from the Old Testament.

Until very lately, we presume, no Christian author ever doubted whether these words contained a glorious and explicit prediction respecting the birth of Messiah. But according to the new canons of interpretation, Dr. Smith is correct: this important text must be given up, as proving nothing; as having no reference whatever, to the event, to which Christians from the earliest ages have been in the habit of applying it. And not only so, but on these principles numerous texts besides, which, as former commentators thought, contained predictions of Christ, must be relinquished. And we are apprehensive, that instead of finding Christ every where in the Old Testament, we shall be in danger of finding him nowhere. Even that famous prophecy, Isaiah liii. which Dr. Woods says, "cannot without violence, be understood as relating to any but the Messiah," has been by some commentators refer

red to other objects; and by others has not been considered a prediction at all. We are, we confess, afraid of what Flatt, in his Essay on Inspiration, appended to this volume, calls the new exegesis: and although he is called orthodox, and professes to defend the orthodox doctrine of inspiration, as formerly held by the church; yet it is such a defence as actually betrays the cause; so cold and feeble is his essay, that we should have been better pleased if Dr. Woods had left it in the obscurity of its native German. Very different, however, is our opinion of the extract at the close of the Appendix, from the late work of the Rev. Daniel Wilson. This is truly excellent; and had the worthy author never written any thing besides, it would be sufficient to prove that he was a man of talents, and correct habits of thinking.

The third Lecture is occupied in the proof of the inspiration of the Old Testament, from direct assertions, and other representations in the New. On this subject there is no difficulty. The proof is abundant, and of the clearest kind.

The fourth Lecture contains the positive evidences of the inspiration of the books of the New Testament, derived from "the commission to the apostles,-from the promise of the Holy Spirit,-from the fact that the writers considered themselves inspired. Notice is taken also, of the instances in which Paul seems to disclaim inspiration: and it is shown that these passages will bear another interpretation, perfectly consistent with his being under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, when he wrote them. The case of Mark and Luke, who, though not apostles, were writers of part of the New Testament, is considered, and reasons are assigned why they should also be admitted to be inspired men. The only objection which we feel to this whole argument for the inspiration of the New Testament, is, that it is defective, by reason of the omission of the evidence afforded by the internal excellence of the doctrines and precepts which it contains; but of this we have already expressed our opinion.

The fifth Lecture, takes a view of the nature and extent of inspiration." The author very properly rejects the usual distinctions of inspiration into several kinds and degrees; for, although, in some cases, the writers possessed the knowledge required to be communicated previously, yet in these instances as well as when all the ideas were inspired, they were equally under an infallible guidance. Dr. Woods's definition of inspiration is, "a supernatural guidance or assistance afford