There is one truth in the opinion of our oppo nents. The predictions of the future by the pro phets are always on a general basis, by which they are characteristically distinguished from sooth saying. Real prophecy is based upon the idea of God. The acts of God are based upon his essence, and have therefore the character of ne cessity. The most elevated prerogative of the prophets is that they have possessed themselves of his idea, that they have penetrated into his es sence, that they have become conscious of the eternal laws by which the world is governed. For instance, if they demonstrate that sin is the perdi tion of man, that where the carcase is, the eagles will be assembled, the most important point in this prediction is not the HOW but the WHAT which first by them was clearly communicated to the peo ple of God, and of which the lively remembrance is by them kept up. But if the prophets had merely kept to the TIIAT, and had never spoken about the HOW, or if, like Savonarola, they had errone ously described this How, they would be unfit effectually to teach the THAT to those people who have not yet acquired an independent idea of God. According to human weakness, the knowledge of the FORM is requisite in order to fertilize the know ledge of the ESSENCE, especially in a mission to a people among whom formality so much predomi nated as among the people of the Old Covenant. The position of the prophets depends upon these circumstances. They had not, like the priests, an external warrant. Therefore Moses (Dent. xviii.) directed them to produce truc prophecies as their warrant. According to ver. 22, the true and the false prophet are distinguished by the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of prophecy. This criterion is de stroyed by the modern opinion respecting pro phetism. Without this warrant, the principal point of prophetical preaching, the doctrine of the Messiah, could not be brought to the knowledge of the people, as being of primary importance. Without this fulfilment the prophets had no answer to those who declared that the hopes raised by them were fantastic and fanatical.
It is true that, according to what we have stated, the necessity of prophecy ariscs only from the weakness of man. Miracles also are necessary only on account of this weakness. Prophecy is necessary only under certain conditions ; but these conditions were fully extant during the period of the ancient Covenant. During the Ncw Covenant human weakness is supported by other and more powerful means, which were wanting during the time of the Old Covenant ; especially by the ope ration of the Spirit of Christ upon the hearts of the faithful ; which operation is by far morc powerful than that of the Spirit of God during the Old Cove nant ; consequently, definite predictions can be dispensed with, especially since the faithful of the N. T. derive benefit also from the prophecies granted to the people of the O. T.
The predictions of futurity in the O. T. have also a considerable bearing upon the contemporaries of the prophet. Consequently, they stand not so iso lated and unconnected as our opponents assert. The Chaldans, for instance, who are said to threaten destruction to Israel, were, in the days of Isaiah, already on the stage of history ; and their juvenile power, if compared with the decline of the Assy rians, might lead to the conjecture that they would some time or other supplant the Assyrians in domi nion over Asia. Babylon, certainly, was as yet under Assyrian government ; but it was still during, the lifetime of the prophet that this city tried to shake off their yoke. This attempt was unsuccess
ful, but the conditions under which it might suc ceed at a future period were already in existence. The future exaltation of this city might be foreseen from history, and its future fall from theology. In a pagan nation success is always the forerunner of pride, and all its consequences. And, according to the eternal laws by which God governs the world, an overbearing spirit is the certain forerun ner of destruction. The future liberation of Israel might also be theologically foreseen ; and we can not look upon this prediction as so abrupt as a prediction of the deliverance of other nations would have been, and as, for instance, a false prediction of the deliverance of Moab would have appeared. Even the Pentateuch emphatically informs us that the covenant-people cannot be given up to final perdition, and that mercy is always concealed behind the judgments which befall them.
z. Attempts have been made to demonstrate the spuriousness of several portions from the cir cumstance that the author takes his position not in the period of Isaiah, but in much later times, r.amely, those of the exile. It has been said, Let it be granted that the prophet had a knowledge of futmity : in that case we cannot suppose that he would predict it otherwise than as future, and he cannot proclaim it as present.' The prophets, however, did not prophesy in a state of calculating reflection, but inrd 7rvelipzuros Crytou q5ep6gevol, borne along by the Holy Ghost.' The objects offered themselves to their spiritual vision. On that account they are frequently called seers, to whom futurity appears as present. Even Hebrew grammar has long ago recognised this fact in the terms pretterita prophetica. These prophetical prxter tenses indicate a time ideally past, in con tra-distinction to the time which is really past. Every chapter of Isaiah furnishes examples of this grammatical fact. Even in the first there is con tained a remarkable instance of it. Interpreters frequently went astray, because they misunderstood the nature of prophecy, and took the finder/fa pro phelita as real prxterites ; consequently, they could only by some inconsistency escape from Eichhorn's opinion, that the prophecies were veiled historical descriptions. The prophets have futurity always before their eyes. Prophetism, therefore, is subject to the laws of poetry more than to those of history (compare the ingenious remarks on the connection of poetry and prophet isrn in the work of Steinbeck, .Der .Dichter Seher, Leipzig 1836). Prophetism places us in media: res, or rather the prophet is placed ill nzedias res. The Spirit of God elevates him above the terra firma of common reality, and of common perception. The prophet beholds as connected things externally separated, if they are linked to gether by their internal character. The prophet beholds what is distant as near, if its hidden basis, although concealed to the eyes of flesh, already exists. This was, for instance, the case with Israel's captivity and deliverance. Neither hap pened by chalice. Both events proceeded from the justice and mercy of God, a living knowledge of which necessarily produced the beholding know ledge of the same. The prophet views things in the light of that God who calls the things that are not as though they were, and to whom the future is present.