1st, The Structure and the Contents of Prophecy; 2, its Use and Design in reference to the several periods in which it was given; 3, the proofs which it bears of a distinct Inspiration, manifested in the accomplishment of its predictions.

There is, in the Prophetic writings, a perpetual and most impressive intermixture of moral precept with predictive intimation; and they are eminently distinguished by their clear and fearless statement of the principles of pure theology during a lapse of ages in which the whole world beside lay in darkness and corruption.

'When,' asks Mr. Davison, were these essential doctrines of religion and morality taught? They were taught to one separated people; at a time when the popular religion of the rest of the world was gone into idolatry and polytheism, and the principles of morals proportionally gross and imperfect; or where better notions on these subjects had place in the minds of men, they had no solid footing, for want of the sufficient authority to enforce them upon the life and conscience; and at the best, the very choice of their notions fell short of the sanctity and integrity of the doctrine extant in the books of the prophets of Israel. But what these prophets delivered, they delivered as by inspiration; however they spoke, whether to predict, or to instruct, it was not in their own name," but as the word of the Lord came unto them." This was a high pretension in their doc trine; yet for what greater or better purpose could inspiration be given? The worthiness of the end, and the apparent fruits of the gift, render the gift itself most credible.

• For compare in this light the oracles of Scripture Prophecy, with the creeds of Paganism. In the one the religion is the foundation of the morals. By the Pagan creed, the morals were rather perverted and deteriorated. The best resources, indeed, of heathen virtue, were in the natural faith of conscience, which a corrupt theology could not wholly obliterate. But in the one case, religion and virtue were united; in the other they were at variance. And the Philosophy which did the most to reclaim the theory of ethical truth, could not restore the broken union between that truth and religion; and so the whole system, in which man's best fortunes lay, was out of order. Philosophy wanted religion; and oracles and priests cared little for virtue. The teachers of Israel held both in perfect concord together. In that age of the world they were no ordinary persons who did so. None but they are known to have done it.'

Still, notwithstanding the high standard of morality which distinguishes the prophetic writings, and the awful sanctions which they employ in the enforcement of their doctrinal precepts, they fall short of the Evangelical Scriptures in the fulness of their revelation, as well as in all that constitutes a comprehensive and elevated system of faith-a pure and perfect rule of life. The Prophets went beyond the Law, but

they attained not unto the Gospel. It was not in the order of the Evangelical system, that they who were only heralds and preparers of the way, should anticipate that entire discovery, which it was reserved for Him to make, who, in the fulness of time, brought life and immortality to light. In this point of view, then, the Prophetic Scriptures hold an intermediate place between the Mosaic law, and the Gospel as given by Christ. This representation is carried on and illustrated by Mr. Davison in a very impressive manner.

The line of prediction began at the first with the promise of a Redeemer; but the promise was general and obscure, and indeterminate in all its modes and circumstances. The same word of promise was enlarged from time to time; it grew in force and clearness till it approached its consummation. So of other instances of Scripture prediction; they had their enlargements. In like manner, the divine law was unfolded. The Patriarchal and the Mosaic covenants do not express so full a model of the law of righteousness, by which man is to serve his Creator, as the later revelation given by the prophets. The prophets carry on that law; they furnish it with new materials of sentiment, motive, and duty; and this they do under the guidance of an original inspiration granted to them, as they declare, and not as commentators who merely elicit the sense of the law existing. Hence, the sin of Israel was this, that "they made their hearts as an adamant-stone, lest they should hear the Law, and the words which the Lord of Hosts hath sent in his Spirit by the former Prophets." Hence, Christ acknowledges and confirms "the Law and the Prophets" as the two connected parts of the existing moral revelation, which he came not to destroy, but "to complete" and establish for ever.

And it is remarkable, that the Prophet, who of all others is the most full and explicit in delineating the Messiah's kingdom of redemption, is equally distinguished for the copiousness and variety of his lessons of holiness. Isaiah is not more the Evangelical Prophet' for that which he foretold, than for that which he taught. And this might be said, that, although a Christian could not consent to a surrender of the New Testament itself, yet if any one book of the Old were to be selected as a substitute for that more perfect gift, whereby to direct equally his faith and his obedience, none could be taken so adequate to both those purposes as the volume of this eminent Prophet, to whom it was given to behold the glory of Christ's kingdom with an eagle eye, and to drink of the spirit of holiness beyond

his brethren.

To conclude this topic, I add one observation more upon it. One book of the Pentateuch there is, wherein may be found the pathos and sublimities of religion in a strain not to be surpassed in any part of the Old Testament; the book of Deuteronomy. This book embraces a rehearsal and republication of the law by the great Prophet of it himself; with a survey of the wonders of Egypt and the Wilderness; the past acts of God's mighty arm, working in terror and in

mercy; the stipulated blessings of obedience, (which I may call the Mosaic beatitudes); and a terrific insight into the future plagues of his apostate people. Of the majesty of the book, and the impressiveness of it in these particulars, a calm and deliberate perusal can alone convey any just idea. Nor are the signatures of authentic truth and inspiration less stampt upon it. But here also may be traced the progressive scheme of Scripture. For this very book, if I mistake not, might, in its doctrinal character and use, be set above the simpler and earlier promulgation of the law as recorded in Exodus. And next, though in sublimity it be inferior to nothing in the Prophets, it may be ranked as only approaching to the practical standard of faith and personal obedience, exhibited in the doctrines, promises, and precepts of the prophet Isaiah. The considerate reader will judge whether this account of the expansion of the divine law by the later prophets be not a just one. If it be admitted, one use and intent of their mission will be better understood; and the remote members of revelation will be seen to compose a consistent whole, not by uniformity, but progression, every part of it silently advancing toward the spirit and perfection of the Gospel.'

The collateral character of Prophecy, to which we have before adverted, is strongly illustrated in the Promise made to Abraham. The verification of that portion which related to the possession of Canaan, was a pledge of the more ample fulfilment of that which foretold the ultimate extension of the blessings first given to his seed, to all the nations of the earth. And this character is maintained throughout the prophecies of the Old Testament. On the one hand, they refer to the Jews and their immediate connexions; on the other, they point steadily to the Gospel dispensation.

We cannot say that we are entirely satisfied with Mr. Davison's exposition of the Mosaic Law. The discussion is conducted with his wonted ability, but it appears to us somewhat deficient in distinctness and definition. He affirms the temporality of the Mosaic sanctions; and contends that to the Israelites, the import of the types was latent-it was a Sense not 'disclosed to the Hebrew worshipper.' There can be no question respecting the comparative clearness, to us as Christians, of their intent and object. The great Antitype has been manifested, and in his personal character, as well as in the circumstances of his appearance, He has given an ample and glorious illustration of that which was before obscure and uncertain. But, the comparative view of the subject being put aside, we cannot give an entire assent to the hypothesis of Mr. D. There is the same distinction between latency and the common-parlance meaning of obscurity as between twilight and absolute darkness. Now, if the types were specifically latent' or concealed,' the Jews were left, not in uncertainty,

but in starless midnight. It should seem, (and on sacred ground we would tread reverently,) that, on Mr. Davison's supposition, though the very spirit of their institutions warned them from idolatry, they were left without defence against the encroachments of superstition. Take away from the expres sive ritual of Judaism the meaning and object which gave it reality, and made it effective to the instruction and edification of its observers, and you reduce it, so far as they were concerned, to a mere splendid ceremonial. But invest it with its peculiar character, and give to the temple worshippers some apprehension, however imperfect, of its continual reference to a parallel, though infinitely higher series of transactions, and you place them on different ground; they become at once the responsible agents in, a "reasonable service." There is, indeed, one strong fact, which, taken alone, might give plausibility to Mr. Davison's position; we allude to that remarkable proneness to idolatry, which for so long a period was the disgrace and scourge of the Jewish nation. It may be speciously urged, that if this consciousness of a higher meaning and loftier direction were possessed by the Jews, it would have been a most effectual preservative against idolatrous error. We grant that it would, had these great truths been constantly kept in view, and their influence been cherished, by the great body of the nation. But we are not pleading for this universal knowledge; at least, not for its actual and honest reception by the negligent multitude. We contend only for such means of acquiring illumination as would leave them "without excuse," and these, we think, were to be found in the very nature of the temple service. There was a marked contrast between what may be called the moral and the material divisions of their system. Though Jehovah was pleased to reveal himself by awful symbols, his spiritual nature was clearly indicated, by the very media through which the skirts of the divine glory were dimly seen. But the ceremonies of the temple were tangible and circumstantial, and though accordant, in one sense, with the general scheme of the theocracy, yet, in another, were at variance with the spirituality and abstraction of the divine nature. Hence, an obvious necessity for assigning a specific and referential character to the ritual of the Jews; and such necessity could only be overlooked by the resolutely ignorant, the contentedly superstitious, or by those whose pride and bigotry had become identified with the externals of the system. These views might be supported by a reference to the history of the Old Testament, and to the doctrinal declarations both of the Old and the New; but we must

hasten on to notice the various important topics which lie before us.

Mr. Davison, however, seems to admit that the Israelite had, in some degree, access to the great significations of his • sacrificial and ritual worship,' but maintains that he obtained it only by the insinuation of prophecy.' We are not disposed to question the advantages which were derived from this source; but we cannot allow that there was not in the general system something of which the specific tendency was to indicate the connexion between the shadow and the substance.

It would be quite impossible for us to follow Mr. Davison through his comments on the chain of Prophecy from Moses, or rather from Samuel, to Malachi. They are conducted with singular ability, and though the amount of decided novelty may not be great, yet the varied illustration, the light thrown on general arrangement, and the incidental annotations, are both interesting and valuable.

Throughout nearly the whole of the Prophets, the Evangelical strain of prediction and reference, is too marked for evasion or misconception. There are, however, three, among those who are usually termed the Minor Prophets, in whom the reference to the Messiah is of a different and less direct kind. The prophetic warnings of Jonah and Nahum regarded Nineveh; those of Habbakuk related to the invasion of the Chaldeans. But Jonah was himself a prophetic sign, a type of the Redeemer. His typical death and burial during three days, with his miraculous deliverance, are expressly claimed by our Saviour as the lively images of his own death and resurrection. While the menacing predictions of Jonah were arrested in their course towards fulfilment, by the repentance of Nineveh, the subsequent denunciations of Nahum against the same mighty city, hardened in iniquity, were followed by its awful destruction. These two books may be considered as forming

'connected parts of one moral history; the remission of God's judgment being illustrated in the one, the execution of it in the other. Of pure Christian prophecy, either direct or typical, perhaps the book of Nahum must be set down as affording no in

stance.'

Habbakuk bears distinct marks of Evangelical character. His clear reference to faith as the principle of the religious life, and his annunciation of the great Vision that was for an appointed time, are unequivocal indications; and the conclusion of his book

⚫ contains a confession of his own faith, and that faith separated