Page:The Collected Works of Theodore Parker Discourse volume 1.djvu/273

226 could not equally well predict? It has never been shown. Most of the prophetic writings relate to the past and the present; to the political, civil, and moral condition of the people, at the time; they exhort backsliding Israel to forsake his idols, return to Jehovah, live wisely and well. They state the result of obedience or of disobeying, for individuals and the nation. It is rare they predict distinctly and definitely any specific event; sometimes they foretell, in the most general terms, good or ill fortune, the destruction of a city, the defeat of an army, the downfal l of a king. But in case the prediction came to pass, who shall tell us, at this distance of time, that it was not either a lucky hit, or the result of sagacious insight? Certainly the supposition is against a miracle. The Tripod of Delphi delivered some oracles that were extraordinarily felicitous; Seneca made a very clear prediction of the discovery of America, and Lactantius of the rise and downfal l of Napoleon, and Lotichius of the capture of Magdeburg. Does the fulfilment prove the miraculous inspiration of the oracle in these cases?

But to recur to the other test, there are statements in the prophets which are not true; predictions that did not come to pass. Under this rubric may be placed three of the most celebrated oracles in the Old Testament.

It was an easy thing in Jeremiah's position to see that the little nation of Judea could not hold out against the Babylonian forces, and therefore must experience the common fate of nations they conquered, and be carried into exile. But would the Lord forsake his people; the seed of Abraham? A pious Jew could not believe it. It was unavoidable, with the common opinion of his countrymen, that he should expect their subsequent restoration. But why predict an exile of just seventy years, unless miraculously directed? He may have used that term for an indefinite period; a common practice. In that case there is