88 REV. A. H. T. CLARKE, M.A., ON THE FULFILMENT OF PROPHECY. 



Mr. Rouse agreed with the Lecturer that some prophecies of the 

 Old Testament had, and were intended to have, two fulfilments, the 

 more distant one being the more important. This was the case with 

 the fate of Ahitophel, foretold in Psalm lxix and elsewhere, and of 

 Judas Iscariot, for like treachery. But the Lecturer further claimed 

 that prophecies were usually of a comprehensive character, with 

 many possible fulfilments. In his survey of the subject, however, 

 he had passed without notice numerous examples of prophecy which 

 had a specific and individual reference only, such as the information 

 which Samuel gave to Saul about the discovery of his father's asses, 

 and the prophecy of Elisha that food should be plentiful in Samaria 

 the next day. The Lecturer further made unnecessary difficulty 

 in finding the fulfilment of the Lord's prophecies recorded in 

 Matthew xxiv, Mark xiii, and Luke xxi. A careful perusal of the 

 passages would show that our Lord was replying to three questions 

 which His disciples had asked him, and that Luke recorded the 

 answer to one question and described the siege of Jerusalem under 

 Titus, while Matthew and Mark recorded His prophecy of the final 

 siege of Jerusalem and the tribulation which had been foretold in 

 Zechariah xii and xiv. 



Mr. Maunder differed from Mr. Rouse in his criticism of the 

 Lecturer for omitting all allusion to unimportant details of 

 prophecy. The subject before them that afternoon was a very wide 

 one, and the Lecturer had been wise in seeking to avoid minor 

 details and confining himself to broad principles. 



There were two elements in prophecy, the Divine and the 

 human. God Himself was the Origin and Fount of prophecy, but 

 He used men to speak it forth, and men were able to lend them- 

 selves to this Divine usage. 



He would invite the Meeting to consider how the three subjects 

 which they had discussed at this and the two previous Meetings 

 illustrated each other. Philosophers had told us that one man, 

 speaking to another and using certain words, had no security that 

 those words had the same meaning to his hearer that they had to 

 himself. As a matter of logic this might be true ; as a matter of 

 practice, we clo unquestionably have intercourse and communion 

 with each other. So the miracle is continually being repeated that 

 a little child, with its budding intelligence, learns to understand and 

 to speak a language no word of which it understands by nature, and 



