can certainly converse with his rational creatures in such a manner, as to assure them that He speaks or holds intercourse with them. To deny this is to make the allperfect Being more deficient than the weakest of his intelligent offspring.

2. We cannot determine a priori what mode of communication in any given instance is most worthy of God, and best suited to the ends of his wisdom and goodness. Yet

3. We can clearly perceive that different modes may be best adapted to different persons, circumstances, and designs, and especially to the different periods of the church and the world. Let us apply these general remarks to the subject before us. The writer to the He brews says, that God spake to and by the prophets not only" at sundry times," but " in divers manners;" that is, he spake by dreams, visions, inspirations, voices, and the ministry of angels.

ઃઃ

First, by dreams. We often read that "God came or spake to such a one in a dream." Natural or common dreams are among the wonders of the human constitution. They seem to indicate the active nature of our minds, and perhaps their capacity of lively perception and feeling without the aid of bodily organs. At the same time they evidently grow out of materials already deposited in our memories, and receive their complexion either from the present temperament of our bodies, or the favorite employment of our waking hours. It is therefore by no means unphilosophical to suppose that the omnipresent spirit may sometimes have peculiar access to the spirits of men, when the gross medium of sense being laid aside; the mind seems peculiarly open to spiritual and divine intercourse. Such communications may have been

eminently proper and expedient in the early ages, when reason was but little cultivated; when a standing external revelation was comparatively very imperfect; when the heathen and even jewish world superstitiously regarded common dreams, as prognostics of future events; and when false prophets and soothsayers pretended from this source to receive and announce the divine will. In such a state of things it was evidently worthy of God to crush these pretenders with their own weapons, by some times conveying that supernatural information in dreams, of which they vainly boasted. It was worthy of the Supreme Ruler to assert his exclusive and sovereign empire over men's thoughts, both sleeping and waking, and occasionally to use both as means of publishing and accomplishing his will. This leads us to the

Second mode of divine revelation to the prophets, viz. by visions. These, considered as distinct from dreams, denote representations made to their imaginations, when awake. If the force of bodily disease or mental delirium. can paint on the waking fancy a lively image of persons and things not present or real; much more can omnipotence produce the same effect; and perfect wisdom and goodness may well produce it for some great and beneficent purpose. Of this kind was St. Peter's vision of a large vessel filled with all kinds of animals, clean and unclean, accompanied with a divine injunction to make a free use of any which he chose.* This vision, with its manifest import, prepared him for the benevolent office of freely conversing with, and preaching to the uncircumcised gentiles, whom before he had viewed as unclean. Such too was probably Paul's vision of the third heavens ;† though he himself could not tell whether celestial objects were † 2 Cor. xii. 1, 2, 3.

Acts x. 9. 10,

[LECT. XVII. brought down to his imagination, or whether his soul were for a time really caught up from his body to the heavenly regions. By the way, this uncertainty of our apostle, as a learned writer observes, does not accord with the material scheme; for it evidently implies that Paul viewed the soul as capable not only of existing, but of conversing with the celestial world separately from the body. I must add that visions in the style of scripture intend not only images presented to the fancy, but real supernatural exhibitions to the senses. Thus the appearance of an angel to Zacheriah in the temple is called a vision. Finally, this term is indefinitely applied to any kind of supernatu ral communication. If a well known human voice convey truth to our ears, we have a mental vision or knowledge of the truth imparted, and of the person speaking, even if we see no sensible appearance. The application is

easy.

But here an important question arises-How could the prophets certainly distinguish miracles, visions, and dreams from such as were common, enthusiastic or delusive? To this Jewish and Christian writers have given several answers. They tell us that divine manifestations were distinguished by something extraordinary in the splendor of the appearance, in the strength of the representation, or in the impression made on the percipient. They inform us that during this divine intercourse the prophet was in the calm and full possession of his faculties; whereas fanatical or pagan inspirations threw the subject into raving distraction. They also tell us that the matters communicated by divine visions were always weighty and interesting, worthy of God, and highly important to man. But though revelations from God were probably attended with these circumstances, we cannot either from scrip

1

ture or reason certainly determine how the prophets were assured of their divine original. But we know that as the Deity was able to give them full evidence of this, so he undoubtedly gave it; otherwise they would not have been obliged to receive and act upon such revelations. Certainly Abraham, for instance, would not have felt himself either warranted or inclined to offer his only son as a sacrifice, had he not received irresistable evidence that this action was commanded by Jehovah. He must have had much stronger assurance of this, than he could have that the action required was in present circumstances evil; otherwise he never would nor ought to have complied. This patriarch had been previously and fully acquainted with God's peculiar mode of conversing with him; which precluded the possibility of deception. Similar observations might be made on other divine communications.

But here another great question arises-How could those, to whom the prophets delivered their messages, be assured of their divine authority? We answer, if a professed prophet announced any doctrine, or precept, which contradicted either sound reason, or the standing revelation of God's will, he was to be rejected and punished as an impious impostor, even though he confirmed his message by seeming miracles. The law of Moses expressly dooms to death any pretender to inspiration, who should even perform wonders, if he did them to support idolatry, or to entice the people from the true God.* But if a prophet delivered nothing repugnant to the law of nature or of Moses, his divine mission might be satisfactorily proved to others-First, by his personal and exemplary holiness. This would forbid the supposition

Deut. xiii, 1, 5.

of his falsely and blasphemously pretending to communications from God-Second, by the testimony of undoubted prophets in his favor. Thus Moses gave open testimony to Joshua, and John the Baptist to our Savior -Third, by evident miracles. These fully authenticated the divine mission of Moses and of several succeeding prophets-Fourth, by sudden and extraordinary judgments on such, as rejected his message. There are several instances of this kind in the sacred history ; and they were awful and miraculous attestations of those prophets in whose behalf, or by whose request they were inflicted-Fifth, by the accomplishment of his predictions. This is laid down in the Jewish law as the grand criterion of a true prophet; and this signature in fact attended all the prophetic writers of the Old Testament. We grant that the prediction of Jonah respecting the destruction of Nineveh in forty days, was not literally verified. The reason was, this prediction, like all other threatnings of evil, was conditional, and was thus understood by the Ninevites. It implied that they should be destroyed, if they persisted in wickedness, or if speedy repentance did not avert the threatened doom. This is the true import of prophetic denunciations, when addressed to the offending party. They leave room for, and contain a rouzing call to amendment; but if this be not effected, the predicted punishment will fully take place.

Having attended to the two first methods of divine manifestation to the prophets, viz. by dreams and visions, we will close with briefly noticing the

Third mode, viz. by inspiration, or a suggestion of ideas to the understanding, without such representations to the fancy, as the former methods imply. Maimonides, one 1 Kings xiii. 1, 6. 2 Kings i. 9, 12.