A third mode of reconciling these two theories of interpretation is the one pursued by Lowth, and still more successfully by Hengstenberg. It rests upon the supposition that the nearer and the more remote realization of the same prophetic picture might be presented to the Prophet simultaneously or in immediate succession; so that, for example, the deliverance from Babylon by Cyrus insensibly merges into a greater deliverance from sin and ruin by Christ. The principle assumed in this ingenious doctrine is as just as it is beautiful, and of the highest practical importance in interpretation. The only objection to its general application in the case before us is, that it concedes the constant reference to Babylon throughout this book, and only seeks to reconcile this fundamental fact with the wider application of the Prophecies.

It still remains to be considered, therefore, whether any general hypothesis or scheme can be constructed, which, without giving undue prominence to any of the topics introduced, without restricting general expressions to specific objects, without assuming harsh transitions, needless double senses, or imaginary typical relations, shall do justice to the unity and homogeneousness of the composition, and satisfactorily reconcile the largeness and variety of its design with the particular allusions and predictions which can only be eliminated from it by a forced and artificial exegesis.

Such a hypothesis is that propounded at the beginning of this Introduction, and assumed as the basis of the following Exposition. It supposes the main subject of these Prophecies, or rather of this Prophecy, to be the Church or people of God, considered in its members and its head, in its design, its origin, its progress, its vicissitudes, its consummation, in its various relations to God and to the world, both as a field of battle and a field of labour, an enemy's country to be conquered and an inheritance to be secured.

Within the limits of this general description it is easy to distinguish, as alternate objects of prophetic vision, the two great phases of the Church on earth, its state of bondage and its state of freedom, its ceremonial and its spiritual aspect—in a word, what we usually call the Old and New Economy or Dispensation. Both are continually set before us, but with this observable distinction in the mode of presentation, that the first great period is described by individual specific strokes, the second by its outlines as a definite yet undivided whole. To the great turning-point between the two dispensations the prophetic view appears to reach with clear discrimination of the intervening objects, but beyond that to take all in at a single glance. Within the boundaries first mentioned the eye passes with a varied uniformity from one salient point to another; but beyond them it contemplates the end and the beginning, not as distinct pictures, but as necessary elements of This difference might naturally be expected in a Prophecy belonging

one.

to the Old Dispensation, while in one belonging to the New we should as naturally look for the same definiteness and minuteness as the older prophets used in their descriptions of the older times; and this condition is completely answered by the Book of Revelation.

If this be so, it throws a new light on the more specific Prophecies of this part of Isaiah (such as those relating to the Babylonish Exile); which are then to be regarded, not as the main subject of the Prophecy, but only as prominent figures in the great prophetic picture, some of which were to the Prophet's eye already past, and some still future. In this respect the Prophecy is perfectly in keeping with the History of Israel, in which the Exile and the Restoration stand conspicuously forth as one of the great critical conjunctures which at distant intervals prepared the way for the removal of the ancient system, and yet secured its continued operation till the time of that removal should arrive. How far the same thing may be said of other periods which occupy a like place in the history of the Jews, such as the period of the Maccabees or Hasmonean Princes, is a question rendered doubtful by the silence of the Prophecy itself, and by the absence of any indications which are absolutely unambiguous. The specific reference of certain passages to this important epoch both by Grotius and Vitringa, has no antecedent probability against it; but we cannot with the same unhesitating confidence assert such an allusion as we can in the case of Babylon and Cyrus, which are mentioned so expressly and repeatedly. It may be that historical discovery, the march of which has been so rapid in our own day, will enable us, or those who shall come after us, to set this question finally at rest. In the meantime it is safest to content ourselves with carefully distinguishing between the old and new economy as represented on the Prophet's canvass, without attempting to determine by conjecture what particular events are predicted even in the former, any further than we have the certain guidance of the Prophecy itself.

As to a similar attempt in reference to the New Dispensation, it is wholly inconsistent with the view which we have taken of the structure of these Prophecies, and which regards them not as particular descriptions of this or that event in later times, but as a general description of the Church in its emancipated state, or of the Reign of the Messiah, not at one time or another, but throughout its whole course, so that the faint light of the dawn is blended with the glow of sunset and the blaze of noon. The form under which the Reign of Christ is here presented to and by the Prophet is that of a glorious emancipation from the bondage and the darkness of the old economy, in representing which he naturally dwells with more minuteness upon that part of the picture which is nearest to himself, while the rest is bathed in a flood of light; to penetrate beyond which, or to discriminate the objects hid beneath its dazzling veil, formed no part of this Prophet's

mission, but was reserved for the prophetic revelations of the New Testa

ment.

It is not however merely to the contrast of the two dispensations that the Prophet's eye is here directed. It would indeed have been impossible to bring this contrast clearly into view without a prominent exhibition of the great event by which the transition was effected, and of the great person who effected it. That person is the Servant of Jehovah, elsewhere spoken of as his Anointed or Messiah, and both here and elsewhere represented as combining the prophetic, regal, and sacerdotal characters suggested by that title. The specific relation which he here sustains to the Israel of God, is that of the Head to a living Body; so that in many cases what is said of him appears to be true wholly or in part of them, as forming one complex person, an idea perfectly accordant with the doctrines and the images of the New Testament. It appears to have been first clearly stated in the dictum of an ancient writer quoted by Augustin: "De Christo et Corpore ejus Ecclesia tanquam de una persona in Scriptura saepius mentionem fieri, cui quaedam tribuuntur quae tantum in Caput, quaedam quae tantum in Corpus competunt, quaedam vero in utrumque." There is nothing in these Prophecies more striking or peculiar than the sublime position occupied by this colossal figure, standing between the Church of the Old and that of the New Testament, as a mediator, an interpreter, a bond of union, and a common head.

If this be a correct view of the structure of these prophecies, nothing can be more erroneous or unfriendly to correct interpretation, than the idea, which appears to form the basis of some expositions, that the primary object in the Prophet's view is Israel as a race or nation, and that its spiritual or ecclesiastical relations are entirely adventitious and subordinate. The natural result of this erroneous supposition is a constant disposition to give every thing a national and local sense. This is especially the case with respect to the names so frequently occurring, Zion, Jerusalem, and Judah; all which, according to this view of the matter, must be understood, wherever it is possible, as meaning nothing more than the hill, the city, and the land, which they originally designate. This error has even been pushed by some to the irrational extreme of making Israel as a race the object of the promises, after their entire separation from the church and their reduction for the time being to the same position with the sons of Ishmael and of Esau. That this view should be taken by the modern Jews, in vindication of their own continued unbelief, is not so strange as its adoption by some Christian writers, even in direct opposition to their own interpretation of former prophecies, almost identical in form and substance. The specifications of this general charge will be fully given in the exposition.

The claim of this mode of interpretation to the praise of strictness and exactness is a false one, if the Israel of prophecy is not the nation as such merely, but the nation as the temporary frame-work of the church, and if the promises addressed to it, in forms derived from this transitory state, were nevertheless meant to be perpetual, and must be therefore independent of all temporary local restrictions. The true sense of the prophecies in this respect cannot be more strongly or explicitly set forth than in the words of the Apostle, when he says that "God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew ;"-" Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for, but the election hath obtained it and the rest were blinded;" "not as though the word of God hath taken none effect, for they are not all Israel which are of Israel."

One effect of the correct view of this matter is to do away with vagueness and uncertainty or random license in the explanation of particular predictions. This requires to be more distinctly stated, as at first view the effect may seem to be directly opposite. It was a favourite maxim with an old school of interpreters, of whom Vitringa may be taken as the type and representative, that the prophecies should be explained to mean as much as possible, because the word of God must of course be more significant and pregnant than the word of man. Without disputing the correctness of the reason thus assumed, it may be granted that the rule itself is good or bad, in theory and practice, according to the sense in which it is received and applied. By the interpreters in question it was practically made to mean, that the dignity of prophecy required the utmost possible particularity of application to specific points of history, and the greatest possible number and variety of such applications. The sincerity with which the rule was recognised and acted on, in this sense, is apparent from the zeal with which Vitringa seeks minute historical allusions under the most general expressions, and the zest with which he piles up mystical senses, as he calls them, on the top of literal ones, plainly regarding the assumption of so many senses not as a necessary evil, but as a desirable advantage.

The evils of this method are, however, more apparent when the senses are less numerous, and the whole fulfilment of the prophecy is sought in some one juncture; because then all other applications are excluded, whereas the more they are diversified the more chance is allowed the reader of discovering the true generic import of the passage. For example, when Vitringa makes the Edom of these prophecies denote the Roman Empire, and also the Church of Rome, and also the unbelieving Jews, he widens the scope of his interpretation so far as unwittingly to put the reader on the true scent of a comprehensive threatening against the inveterate enemies of God and of his people, among whom those specified are only comprehended, if at all, as individual examples. But when, on the other hand, he asserts

that a particular prophecy received its whole fulfilment in the decline of Protestant theology and piety after the Reformation, he not only puts a meaning on the passage which no one else can see there without his assistance, but excludes all other applications as irrelevant. In some interpreters belonging to the same school, but inferior to Vitringa both in learning and judgment, this mode of exposition is connected with a false view of prophecy as mere prediction, and as intended solely to illustrate the divine

omniscience.

Now in aiming to make every thing specific and precise, this kind of exposition renders all uncertain and indefinite, by leaving the particular events foretold to the discretion or caprice of the interpreter. Where the event is expressly described in the prophecy itself, as the conquests of Cyrus are in ch. 44 and 45, there can be no question; it is only where a strict sense is to be imposed upon indefinite expressions, that this evil fruit appears. The perfect license of conjecture thus afforded may be seen by comparing two interpreters of this class, and observing with what confidence the most incompatible opinions are maintained, neither of which would be suggested by the language of the prophecy itself to any other reader. What is thus dependent upon individual invention, taste, or fancy, must be uncertain, not only till it is discovered, but for ever; since the next interpreter may have a still more felicitous conjecture, or a still more ingenious combination, to supplant the old one. It is thus that in aiming at an unattainable precision these interpreters have brought upon themselves the very reproach which they were most solicitous to shun, that of vagueness and uncertainty.

If, instead of this, we let the Prophet say precisely what his words most naturally mean, expounded by the ordinary laws of human language and a due regard to the immediate context and to general usage, without attempting to make that specific which the author has made general, any more than to make general what he has made specific, we shall not only shun the inconveniences described, but facilitate the use and application of these prophecies by modern readers. Christian interpreters, as we have seen, have been so unwilling to renounce their interest, and that of the Church generally, in these ancient promises, encouragements, and warnings, that they have chosen rather to secure them by the cumbrous machinery of allegory, anagoge, and accommodation. But if the same end may be gained without resorting to such means,-if instead of being told to derive consolation from God's promises addressed to the Maccabees or to the Jews in exile, because he will be equally gracious to ourselves, we are permitted to regard a vast proportion of those promises as promises to the Church, and the ancient deliverances of the chosen people as mere samples or instalments of their ultimate fulfilment,—such a change in the relative position of the parties to these covenant transactions, without any change in the matter of the

C