possession of a Divine afflatus was claimed, communicated his pretended revelations while totally unconscious of what passed around him; and the intervention of another party was required for the purpose of interpreting what was uttered in his state of phrensied enthusiasm.' It was this absence of reason or intelligence, when giving utterance to oracular sayings, which the primitive Christians justly regarded as a token of estrangement from the Divine Spirit. The Fathers never questioned, or thought of questioning, the fact that, in many instances, the prophets received revelations from God while in the state of ecstasy: they did deny, and in strict accordance with the intimations of Scripture,-firstly, that the prophets were at any time bereft of intelligent consciousness; and, secondly, that they gave utterance to the Divine communications while in the ecstatic condition, or while the exercise of their faculties was thereby affected. Eusebius, who enters at considerable length upon the literature of this controversy, refers to a treatise, composed expressly against the to represent ecstasy as the psychical foundation of Prophecy, -as Hengstenberg has represented it in his Christology of the Old Testament."-Die Lehre von der Inspir., 1840. H. i. s. 30.

3

* τὸ

1 As to heathen divination, we are indebted to Plato for our knowledge of the distinction between the μúvreis and the πрорñταl. He says, in a well-known passage: οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἔννους ἐφάπτεται μαντικῆς ἐνθέου καὶ ἀληθοῦς, ἀλλ ̓ ἢ καθ ̓ ὕπνον τὴν τῆς φρονήσεως πεδηθεὶς δύναμιν, ἢ διὰ νόσον, ἤ τινα ἐνθουσιασμὸν παραλλάξας * τῶν προφητῶν γένος ἐπὶ ταὶς ἐνθέοις μαντείαις κριτὰς ἐπικαθιστάναι νόμος· οὓς μάντεις αὐτοὺς ἐπονομάζουσί τινες * * * καὶ οὔ τι μάντεις, προφῆται δὲ pavTεvoμévwv dikaιóτata óvoμášoir' äv.-Timæus, ed. Bekker. vol. vii. p. 337. Cf. Lecture ii. p. 84, note 1. Tertullian similarly describes the pretended revelations of the Mon tanists: "Edat [Marcion] aliquem psalmum, aliquam visionem, aliquam orationem, dumtaxat spiritalem, in ecstasi, id est, amentia, si qua linguæ interpretatio accessit.”. Adv. Marcion. v. § 8, p. 591. On this passage Neander observes: "The interpretation of the tongue,' in Tertullian's sense, can only mean that when a person in such an ecstatic state had spoken in a manner unintelligible to others, he, or another person-a point which we must here leave undetermined-repeated what had been uttered, in language that would be generally understood.”—Antignosticus, Th. iii. § 2. (Bohn's ed., p. 509).

2 It has been already pointed out (see Lecture iv. p. 145), how Scripture intimates that the prophets did not commit to writing, or announce the subjects of their visions until some time after they had received the revelations thus imparted: and consequently not until all ecstatic excitement had passed away. E. g. "Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision." On this he blessed God, who "revealeth the deep and secret things," and went to Arioch, "and said thus unto him, * * * bring me in before the king, and I will show unto the king the interpretation."-Dan. ii. 19-24. Again: "Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was astonied for one hour, and his thoughts troubled him. The king spake and said, Let not the dream or the interpretation thereof trouble thee. Belteshazzar answered and said, My Lord, the dream be to them that hate thee," &c.-Dan. iv. 19. So, in the New Testament, some time had elapsed before S. Peter, restored to his ordinary condition, related and acted upon the Divine communication made to him in his ecstasy. (Acts, x.)

3 The writers, to whom Eusebius refers as having composed special treatises

Montanists by a very early writer named Miltiades, entitled "The Prophet may not speak in ecstasy ;" and the historian further quotes, as the leading authority upon this whole subject, an anonymous author, who wrote at the opening of the third century, by whom a marked distinction was drawn between the true prophetic ecstasy, and the false ecstasy of the Montanists, which he discriminated by a special name." "The pseudo-prophet," against the Montanists, are-Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, A. D. 170 (Eccl. Hist., iv. 27; v. 16); Miltiades (v. 17); Apollonius, who states that he wrote his work forty years after the appearance of Montanus (v. 18); S. Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, A. D. 182 (v. 19); and especially an author whose name he does not give, but whom he quotes at considerable length, and to whose opinions he evidently attaches much importance. There has been great diversity of opinion as to who this writer was. Jerome identifies him with Rhodon, who, as he states, composed "adversum Phrygas insigne opus: temporibusque Commodi, et Severi floruit."--Lib. de Vir. Illustr., cap. xxxvii. t. ii. p. 863; cf. cap. xxxix. p. 865. See also Routh, "Reliquiæ Sacræ,” t. ii. p. 195, and t. i. p. 437.

1

S.

The anonymous author, from whom Eusebius derived his information, describes the work of his brother Miltiades” as one-ἐν ᾧ ἀποδείκνυσι περὶ τοῦ μὴ δεῖν προφή TNV ÉV É KOTÚ σ ε ɩ λа λ ɛ îv.-Eccl. Hist., v. xvii. p. 232. Cf. Lecture ii. p. 86, note 1. M. Gaussen ("Theopneustia," p. 409) having observed that the ancient Church regarded as of great importance the principle "that it is not necessary to attribute to the prophets a state of excitement and enthusiasm which prevented due control of their faculties," refers to this work of Miltiades; adding, "See the same principles in Tertullianus (against Marcion, iv. ch. 22); in Epiphanius, Jerome, Basilius the Great, &c." A reference on this head to Tertullian is unfortunate: the passage, too, quoted by M. Gaussen, is perhaps the strongest proof of his Montanist opinions. In it, alluding to S. Peter's words at the Transfiguration, which the Apostle uttered, "not knowing what he said" (S. Luke, ix. 33),-Tertullian asks: " Quomodo nesciens? Utrumne simplici errore, an ratione quam defendimus in causa novæ prophetiæ, gratiæ ecstasin, id est, amentiam convenire? In Spiritu enim homo constitutus, præsertim quum gloriam Dei conspicit, vel quum per ipsum Deus loquitur, necesse est excidat sensu, obumbratus scilicet virtute Divina; de quo inter nos et Psychicos [scil. Catholicos] quæstio est. Interim, facile est amentiam Petri probare. Quomodo enim Moysem et Heliam cognovisset nisi in Spiritu ?"—Adv. Marcion., iv. 22, p. 537. Speaking of Apollonius, to whose work I have referred in the last note, S. Jerome tells us: Apollonius vir disertissimus, scripsit adversus Montanum. * * * Tertullianus sex voluminibus adversus ecclesiam editis, quæ scripsit πɛpì kkoτúσɛws, septimum proprie adversus Apollonium elaboravit."-De Vir. Illustr., cap. xl. t. ii. p. 867. Parecstasis. His words are: 'Αλλ' όγε ψευδοπροφήτης ἐν παρεκστάσει & ἔπεται ἄδεια καὶ ἀφοβία· ἀρχόμενος μὲν ἐξ ἑκουσίου ἀμαθίας, καταστρέφων δὲ εἰς ἀκούσιον κανίαν ψυχῆς, ὡς προείρηται. τοῦτον δὲ τὸν τρόπον, οὔ τέ τινα τῶν κατὰ τὴν παλαιὰν, οὔτε τῶν κατὰ τὴν καινὴν πνευματοφορηθέντα προφήτην δεῖξαι δυνήσονται· οὔτε ΑγαBov k. 7, 2.—Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., v., xvii. p. 233; on which words Valesius remarks: "Notandum est hunc anonymum scriptorem nunquam ECSTASES appellare vanos illos mentis excessus Montanistarum, sed semper PARECSTACES, * Quippe ecstases fere in bonam partem sumuntur. * * * At 'Parecstasis' semper in malam partem accipitur." This writer constantly employs the term 'parecstasis.' Thus he describes Montanus as αιφνιδίως ἐν κατοχῇ τινὶ καὶ παρεκστάσει γενόμενον. —Ibid. v. xvi. p. 229; and he mentions, respecting a certain Theodotus, that he παρεκστήναί τε καὶ καταπιστεῦσαι ἑαυτὸν τῷ τῆς ἀπάτης πνεύματι—Ibid. p. 231; on which Valesius again notes: "Male interpretes omnes hunc locum cepere. Iapεκστήναι est falso mentis excessu abripi. Sic παρέκστασις supra sumitur, id est falsa ecstasis. Sunt cnim veræ ecstaces in Ecclesia, cujusmodi fuit Petri Apostoli, in Actibus cap. x. et xi. ubi Petrus vidisse dicitur in ecstasi visionem. Talis item fuit ecstasis Pauli Apostoli, cum ad tertium usque cœlumn abreptus est. * Sunt

2

*

*

* *

observed this writer, "is sunk in his false ecstasy.' Beginning by a voluntary ignorance, he ends by involuntary phrensy: but they will never be able to prove that any prophet in either the Old or the New Testament was hurried away by the Spirit after this manner;" and, as exemplifying the true prophetic state, the case of Agabus is adduced, of whom mention is made on two occasions in the Acts of the Apostles.'

3

Turning, in the second place, to the other misapprehension into which Dr. Hengstenberg has fallen,-namely, as to the true nature of the prophetic condition itself,-it is to be observed that any theory which represents the state of those who have received revelations from God, as offering any real analogy to that of the heathen diviners, or fanatical Montanists, rests upon principles wholly unsupported by facts. Such a theory must confound what is supernatural, with what is altogether unnatural;2 or with what, on the most favorable supposition (as will be shown elsewhere), is but a perversion of the Divine influence. The simple fact, that the prophets of God subsequently describe the scenes enacted before the eye of the soul,-even entering with the utmost minuteness upon all the details connected with their visions,*--affords the clearest proofs that their powers of memory were retained throughout unimpaired, and of itself precludes the possibility of their having been unconscious. It would be equally inconsistent, indeed, with the character of the Divine influence, and the nature of the human spirit, were we to regard the former as a crushing and disturbing power, instead of one which elevates and calms the soul of man; or, on the other hand, were we to consider the human spirit as so estranged from and unrelated to God, that, in order to become capable of transmitting the revelation from heaven, it must lose its vital power, and remain sunk in its former darkness and inability to comprehend the Divine

item falsæ ecstaces apud hæreticos, quæ Tарεкoтúoεiç eleganter dicuntur ab hoc scriptore. Eodem modo quo rapadioplúoɛiç falsæ emendationes dicuntur a Porphyrio in questionibus Homericis."

1

Acts, xi. 28; xxi. 10.

2 Hävernick truly remarks that the manner in which Hengstenberg has attempted to distinguish the supernatural state of the true prophet from the unnatural state of heathen diviners (see supra, note, p. 192), altogether fails: "A forcible suppression of the self-life (Selbstlebens) is, and ever remains, an unnatural state."-Einleit. II. ii. s. 37.

3 I refer to S. Paul's remarks on "spiritual gifts," 1 Cor. xii. and xiv. See infra, p. 223, note 2.

* See Lecture iv. p. 167, note 1.

mysteries, rather than be reanimated, and enlightened, and raised above the limits of earthly experience.

2

The prophets tell us, it is true, how the energy of the Spirit of God mastered their natural strength; but they also tell us how their souls were supported, and enabled to endure the sublime visions upon which they gazed.' This is a fact which, while it proves that the object of their intuitions was no mere creation of their own imagination,-no mere subjective phantasm,—exhibits, at the same time, how their understanding was qualified to apprehend the Divine communication, and enabled to reproduce it for the benefit of others. Strange, above all, would the phenomenon be, to which I have so repeatedly alluded, of the preservation of each writer's peculiar individuality,--an individuality so plainly stamped upon the form of his representations, -had he been deprived of the use of those natural faculties, by means of which he has embodied in suitable language the ideas which were supernaturally infused into his soul, and placed on record the details of the revelation which they conveyed. So far, indeed, are the facts of the case from suggesting a suppression of the Prophet's intelligent consciousness as being essential or even congruous, that we can at once discern how an elevation, rather, of all the powers whereby ideas are apprehended was, of necessity, required for the purpose of enabling him to receive, or to transmit to others, the mysterious truths which were disclosed to him. None felt more sensibly than the men of God themselves how incompetent, without such spiritual support, are the ordinary faculties of man to grasp conceptions so widely transcending the natural limits of the human soul. The prophet Isaiah, in that most sublime of visions recorded in his sixth chapter, thus felt his innate incapacity: "Woe is me !" he exclaims, "for I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts." But, on a sudden we find his whole being transformed, and his fears dispelled; he comes boldly forward with the words, "Here am I; send me :" for his weakness became strength, and his iniquity was taken away, as soon as the seraph had touched his lips with fire from the Altar of God.3

*

1 See Lecture iv. p. 166, note 2. 2 Cf. Hävernick, loc. cit. "Then flew one of the Seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand which

From the remarks just made it follows, that the continued preservation of the human agent's intelligent consciousness, and the elevation of his natural faculties for the reception of the Divine suggestions, are the characteristics of true Prophecy. Nor does the opinion, already referred to, which denies the force of the Christian argument from Prophecy derive the least support from such a conclusion. It is no legitimate inference from the facts which have been adduced, that the understanding also of the Prophet' must have been so far enlightened as to enable him to comprehend the full signification, and to perceive all the bearings of the Oracle which he uttered. The passage which I have quoted from Bishop Butler points out where the fallacy of such a notion lies. But the subject demands some further consideration, inasmuch as there is no feature of our inquiry which, when justly apprehended, exhibits more clearly the Divine element of Scripture.

It was well remarked by S. Irenæus," that "every prophecy is an enigma before its accomplishment." Let us examine on what foundation this principle rests. In the supernatural and natural worlds, Revelation and Prophecy are, in some obvious respects, parallel to knowledge and teaching. In giving utter

3

he had taken from off the Altar, and he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips," &c.-Isai. vi. 6.

1

1 The following judicious remarks supply an apt illustration: Isaac gave a prophetic blessing to his son, and was therein inspired, and yet mistook as to the person to whom he applied it; wherein the matter was overruled without his privity. * * * Inspiration, therefore, is confined to the purposes which God has to serve by it. On which account we need not wonder that some prophets, though inspired, yet did not understand distinctly their own predictions. Indeed, it was not for God's purpose in those cases that they should understand distinctly. He revealed Himself to them, not so much for themselves, as for others. Much less have we any reason to wonder that some inspired persons should not understand the predictions of other inspired persons, but search diligently into their meaning (Dan. ix. 2: 1 Peter, i. 10, 11)." -Edm. Calamy, The Inspiration of the Old and New Testament, p. 127. 2 He had just observed, that "Christ is the treasure hid in the field, which is the world [S. Matt. xiii. 38, 44]: He was pointed out by types and parables which could not be understood πρὸ τοῦ τὴν ἔκβασιν τῶν προφητευομένων ἐλθεῖν, which is the coming of the Lord." S Irenæus then quotes in proof the words of Daniel: But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end," &c. (xii. 4, 7;) and of Jeremiah; "In the latter days ye shall consider it perfectly" (xxiii. 20),—on which follow the words which I have referred to: não α γὰρ προφητεία πρὸ τῆς ἐκβάσεως, αἴνιγμά ἐστι καὶ ἀντιλογία τοῖς ἀνθρώπωις· ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ὁ καιρὸς, καὶ ἀποβῇ τὸ προφητευθεν, τότε τῆς ἀκριβεστάτης ÉπÉTVXEV ¿ŠNYŃσews.-Cont. Hæres. IV. xxvi. p. 262. ἐπέτυχεν

3 "When Paul asks, 'What shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?' ( v úπOKαλύψει ἢ ἐν γνώσει ἢ ἐν προφητεία ἢ ἐν διδαχῇ 1 Cor. xiv. 6) revelation and 'prophecy' unquestionably correspond to each other, just as 'knowledge' and teach