sians.

way

"For whatsoever doth make manifest is light. Wherefore he saith, Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." (Eph. v. 13, 14.) But where is this said? I am referred to Isaiah lx. 1, but find nothing exactly corresponding. What, then, are the leading ideas contained in the passage? Let us see if we cannot in this trace it. These, then, are three: A state of sleep; "Awake, thou that sleepest:" a state of death; " and arise from the dead:" a state of darkness; "and Christ shall give thee light." Do I know, then, of any passage in the Old Testament that brings together these three ideas? I do, and a very short one: -O Lord my God, lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death." (Psalm xiii. 3.) Here the three ideas will all be found. The Psalmist is already in darkness, as appears by his praying, "lighten mine eyes; and in imminent danger of sleep and death. We may satisfy ourselves of the correspondence, by putting his words in the place of St. Paul's. "For whatsoever doth make manifest is light. Wherefore he saith, O Lord my God, lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death." The general meaning is the same. The inference is, that CHRIST, of whom the Apostle speaks, is the LORD, to whom the Psalmist prayed. These views, then, are by no means unfriendly to sound doctrine, but tend to confirm it.

66

B.

ESSAY IV.

On the Application of Prophecy to the Jews.

Robbery has various degrees of criminality, according to circumstances; but we generally think the worst of those, who rob the poor. Yet this is what is done, when we take prophecy from the Jews. Prophecy is all that they have left: in prophecy is shut up all their comfort: yet some would rob them even of prophecy!

There are other things which tend to aggravate the guilt of robbery; for instance, ill-treatment. It is always deemed a great aggravation, to rob a man and beat him. Yet such is our way of dealing with the Jews: at any rate, such is the way of those, who take from them the promises of their own Scriptures, and give them nothing but ill words and hard blows.

"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it." (Isaiah ii. 2.) The idea of nations flowing is metaphorical: therefore, the passage is figurative.

I answer, Prove it. Prove that one metaphor in a sentence, or half a dozen, if you please, make the whole sentence a mere

figure. It is not so in common conversation. "Our friend flew to his assistance." To say that he flew, is a metaphor. He did not fly, but went with all speed. Yet the transaction is a real one: the speaker means to give an account of something, which actually took place so that the mere use of a metaphor or two does not set aside the plain meaning of a passage. The expression, that all nations shall flow to the mountain of the house, may have its peculiar meanings: it may imply that they shall come abundantly, that they shall come continually, &c.: but still it means that they shall come.-You say that the Oriental languages are very metaphorical, and therefore we must not take the literal sense. But I answer, The Oriental languages are very metaphorical, and therefore we MUST take the literal sense. That is, if the language is very metaphorical, metaphors in particular expressions must so much the less be used as a plea to set aside the literal sense of the

But

I am persuaded, however, that the plea of metaphorical language has been pushed much too far; and used as a pretence for getting away from the plain meaning of a passage, in cases where there is no metaphor whatever. One thing is very remarkable in the prophecies, that, where figurative expressions seem really to be used, there literal ones, explanatory of them, are often used immediately after. Thus, where the Lord declares his intention of purifying Jerusalem, we have first the figurative expression: "I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin." then, as if to explain this, literal terms immediately follow: "And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, The faithful city.” (Isai. i. 25, 26.) Again: first, the figurative terms; "Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:" then, as if to fix their meaning, the literal; "Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves," &c. (ver. 22, 23.) Again: first the figurative, describing the unhappy condition of the state; "The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint: from the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment:" then the same things in plain terms; "Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire," &c. (ver. 5-8.)-What do we learn hence? What but this? that it is not a sound mode of interpretation, to use the figurative language of prophecy in order to draw us away from the literal; but that the literal rather is the comment upon the figura

tive that the literal language of prophecy is not to be interpreted by the figurative, but rather the figurative by the literal.

I look at the first verse of this first chapter of Isaiah, and there I find the following superscription: "The vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah." Thus this prophecy, imparted to Isaiah under certain kings of Judah who are specified, refers, HE SAYS, to "Judah and Jerusalem." Similar superscriptions, fixing the times of the vision in connexion with Jewish concerns, or determining the subject of it to be Judah and Jerusalem and the affairs thereof, I find in other parts of the Book: for instance, at the beginning of the second, sixth, and seventh chapters respectively. Now what more can we want? Suppose, while Isaiah the son of Amoz was proclaiming these things at Jerusalem, and asserting that they related to Jerusalem, an individual had arisen and declared, that they related to something else, and had nothing to do with Jersusalem; could any two persons be more totally at issue than this individual and the prophet? If therefore we believe the prophet to have been a true man-(we will not say, if we believe him to have spoken, as he did, by the Spirit of God)-if we believe him to have been a true man, to have been a man of common veracity, to have been a man who meant what he said, we must believe him to have spoken concerning Jerusalem: otherwise, he must have deceived the Jews, in Jerusalem, to whom he spoke.

But in the prophecies of Isaiah we find a link of a peculiar kind, which indissolubly connects them with the Jews, and with the Jewish history. Some of his prophecies are preserved in the Bible in an historical Book, interwoven with the history to which they are attached; evidently occasioned by a certain historical event, to which event they clearly relate. Now this event was something that happened to Jerusalem. I refer to the eighteenth and nineteenth chapters of the second book of Kings. The king of Assyria sends Rab-shakeh and others from Lachish to king Hezekiah, Hezekiah sends to Isaiah, Isaiah prophesies. Again the king of Assyria sends, and Isaiah prophesies again. The purport of each of the prophecies is the same; namely, that the Lord will punish the king of Assyria, and defend Jerusalem. Now mark the style of these two pro-phecies; and tell me wherein they differ from those contained in the book of Isaiah, properly so called. Observe; the true prophetic note! the true prophetic stride!

"The virgin, the daughter of Zion, hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn!

"The daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee! "Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed?

"And against whom has thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high?

"Even against the Holy One of Israel!"

Let any reader go through the whole passage; and then let him say whether it be not exactly in the style of Isaiah's other prophecies. Yet in this case the reference is too evident to be denied, to the literal Jerusalem, the literal nation, the literal Hezekiah. Well, then. Spiritualize such passages, if you please. Nay, in spiritualizing I will assist you. Trace in them a reference to the spiritual Jerusalem, to the spiritual Israel; and tell me that they shew how God will defend his church and people against all enemies. I believe it. I go with you. I rejoice in the application. I fully and cordially allow it, not only in other prophecies of Isaiah, where the church of Christ seems to be more plainly pointed at, but here, where the primary reference is so immediately and necessarily connected, in the primary sense of the passage, with local circumstances. But then I say, Suum cuique: Let every man have his own. Defraud not the poor Jew, who certainly has in this matter the prior claim.

One other link of connection, however, must yet be observed: namely, that this prophecy, while it stands in the historical books, stands in the prophetical books also; and that too, with the historical circumstances attached to it (Isai. xxxvi. xxxvii.) This decides the matter, beyond all possibility of question, and decides it with regard to ALL Isaiah's prophecies. But for this, an attempt, though a vain one, might be made, to escape from our conclusion. It might be said, The prophecies in the book of Kings are the only ones that have a local application. But now, as not only all have the same style, but all stand together, we must admit that all claim the same application; and that, throughout, wherever a local reference occurs, a local interpretation is the proper one, or that which ought primarily to be given.

I would answer a man who denies the literal sense of prophecy, as I would answer a Socinian. In the New Testament I find every conceivable mode and form of expression employed, to declare the eternity of hell-torments. The Socinian spiritualizes these expressions; i.e. explains them away. Yet, if I perchance preach on the eternity of hell-torments, using no other

than those very ideas or expressions which I find in the New Testament, and which the Socinian spiritualizes there, he is very angry with me: he takes the words, as I speak them, in their plain sense; understands at once that I mean hell and eternal fire; and, being made uneasy, and alarmed, feels offended with me, and calls me a bigot, for attempting to save him from going there. But why? Why does he take these words literally, coming from me, which, as they stand in the Bible, he explains away ? Does he not in this manner betray himself? Is it not clear that the words, after all, do, in the Bible, mean what Christians take them to mean? Is it not clear that, in his heart, the Socinian knows this? If he can explain away the words in the Bible, why cannot he explain them away in my lips? Or, rather, if he cannot explain away what I say, does not this prove, that in thus explaining away the word of God he is guilty of wilful self-delusion?-He considers my preaching about hell an injury, an offence, a personal wrong and insult offered to himself. But if he can get over the ideas and words relating to the subject in the Bible, and I use only the same ideas, and the same words, how comes he to know that I have ever preached about hell at all?

Now then, for the man who explains away the literal import of prophecy. Isaiah says, that his prophecies relate to Judah and Jerusalem. I say the same. When I say it, your mind acts correctly, and performs its natural functions: you take the words as I mean them. And, discovering that my system does not accord with your own, you are offended, and make your objections to it. But when Isaiah says it, you make no objections: you say that his meaning is spiritual. Why is this? If when I assert that the prophet prophesies of Judah and Jerusalem, you perceive that I mean what I say, how is it you perceive not that the prophet means what he says, when he asserts the same? Or, on the contrary, if the prophet means nothing of the kind, how is it you discover that I have any such meaning, when I use his words? I take my text and my doctrine from the Bible, and I preach that the Jews will be restored to their own land. You say, that all the passages which I allege are spiritual. Well then, if it must be so, spiritualize my sermon. I believe some will understand it literally.

But there remains one other plea. "The literal meaning of prophecy is so devoid of interest." Indeed! The literal meaning of any part of God's Word devoid of interest? What is your creed?

B.