Isaiah

Tus eleventh chapter of this prophet is the first in order to which Mr Brown adverts.* The exposition given is much too general. Detail seems carefully avoided — minute interpretation is shunned, and a mere sketch given of what is conceived to be the general sense of the passage. ‘This is the more to be regretted, because the prediction is one which comprises not a few particulars or details; and the main question to be settled by the expositor is how to deal with, or dispose of, these details. Mr B. is quite positive that the whole is figurative, and points ou! some things which, he conceives, put this “beyond aly reasonable doubt,” as well as render the literal view

“preposterous,” nay, “ludicrous.” As, however, I

* P. 200.

can see nothing preposterous or ludicrous in the literal view; nay, as this appears to me the natural and obvious one; I shall examine Mr B.’s statements with as much fulness as possible.

I differ from him in his commencing remark, “that the ultimate universal peacefulness of Christ’s kingdom is traced to two things, — to the destruction of the Antichristian interest on the one hand; and, on the other, the all-pervading presence and influence of Gospel truth.” On this I remark, —

1, That the prophet cannot mean the “Antichristian interest” alone when he speaks of “the earth.” He must mean something more. The earth and the Antichristian interest are not synonymous,

2. That the prophet is not speaking of an “inter- est,” but of a person or persons. The Hebrew word is in the singular. Lowth translated it “the wicked one!” the Septuagint give it &oc€%, and the Vulgate umpium. Mr Brown feels that his theory requires him to transmute this personal into an abstract expression; but he has given us no reason for the transmutation, When Scripture predicts a person or persons, why should we be so anxious to, show that it means merely an “interest” or a cause? Does not this taking refuge in the abstractions, lead one to suspect that the theory which can only keep its ground.

by converting the personality of Scripture into abstractions, must be at variance with the word of God? What makes the passage clearer and more definite is the reference which the Apostle Paul makes to it in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians — a reference which Mr Brown admits. We cannot enter on this point here. We merely remark, that as we hope to be able to prove that the Apostle’s statement concerns a person or persons, not an “interest;” and also, that as he makes it clear that the destruction of Antichrist is by the Lord himself at his second coming, we may say here that the two passages thus placed together are quite at variance with Mr B.’s theory, and cannot be pressed into his service by any such abstract interpretation as he gives — an interpretation which ap-.

pears to us to dig the very heart out of the Bible.*

3. That the “all-pervading presence and influence of Gospel truth” is not the only thing to which we are to ascribe the holy blessedness of these days. Its source is two-fold: — /rst, The presence of the Holy Spirit; and, secondly, The presence of Christ. We are surprised that he has not noticed this. We can see

* This Emerson does at length in his Address to the senior class in Divinity, 1838, enforcing this impersonality of which Mr Brown makes such perilous use, and telling us that “the soul knows no

persons; it invites every man to expand to the full circle of the universe.” By this he makes void all Scripture.

how he, according to his theory, should deny the presence of Christ as the cause; but he will at once admit the presence of the Holy Spirit. Might he not rather say that we are to ascribe “the ultimate universal peacefulness of Christ’s kingdom to the all-pervading presence and influence of the Holy Ghost?” Gospel truth is but the instrument; it is the Spirit that is the agent, both in the present age and in that which is to come.

4. That there is to be a restoration of the Paradisaical state of the earth.* This Mr Brown denies. But it is this that the prophet appears to us directly to predict, when he says “the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid,” &e. It is generally admitted that the state of the lower creation in Paradise was one of harmony, and that it was sim that introduced the discord. Or, using the language of the passage in question, it is admitted that, in Paradise, the wolf did dwell with the lamb, the leopard did lie down with the kid, the calf and the young lion and the fatling were together, the cow and the bear did feed, and their young ones lay down together, and the lion did eat straw like the

* Ridgely evidently inclines to this opinion, when, in describing the Paradisaical state; he refers to Isaiah, and hints that it may be literally accomplished. Vol. i. p. 309.

ox. It was sin that broke the tie, and set these creatures a-warring with each other. It was man’s transgression that drew down the ruin upon creation, animate and inanimate. If such was the harmony of creation’s original estate, where can we find words more exactly descriptive of it than those of Isaiah? Hence Milton has adopted them, and in the following lines sketched the joy and perfection of the primeval

condition of the creatures, —

“About them frisking played All beasts of the earth, since wild, and of all chase In wood or wilderness, forest or den. Sporting the lion ramped, and in his paw Dandled the kid: bears, tigers, ounces, pards Gambolled before them.”

Since, then, it is universally admitted that, in Paradise, creation did exist in that very state which the language of the prophet, literally taken, would describe, are we doing violence to that language when we understand it as teaching a restoration to that which was the primeval condition of the creature, when first it came out of the hands of God? And are not those who spiritualise the prophetic picture diverting the words entirely from their simple and explicit meaning?

Further, — the present state of creation is such as to confirm our interpretation, — for it is precisely the reverse of what the prophet here leads us to look for-M ward to; so that no language could more aptly describe the present condition of the creature than this of the prophet reversed. “The whole creation groaneth,” as the apostle teaches us (Rom. viii. 22); and Mr Robert Haldane, in his exposition of that passage in the Epistle to the Romans, writes thus: “The lower animals have largely shared in the sufferings of man; they are ‘made to be taken and destroyed, and they devour one another.”’* If, then, the reverse of the prophet’s language, taken literally, describe the present state of things on earth, why should not that language itself, taken literally, set forth the future condition of creation in millennial times? Is there any difficulty or unlikelihood about this? Are we doing violence to Scripture by taking it literally? Are we not adopting the simple and natural meaning, from which no one would have thought of departing, had it not been for a theory standing in the way?

But further still, it is a curious fact that all our.

poets, in painting the earth’s future days of blessedness, have at once taken for granted the literality of the prophet’s words. Even the heathen Virgil thus sings of that time : —

MY Nec magnas metuent armenta leones;

Occidet et serpens, et fallax herba veneni
Pacidene coo Boar

* Vol. ii. p. 289.

Cee

And Pope, paraphrasing the prophet, thus writes in his “Messiah”: —

‘*The lambs with wolves shall graze the verdant mead-And boys in flowery banks the’ tiger lead. The steer and lion at one crib shall meet, And harmless serpents lick the pilgrim’s feet.”

Cowper, too, in the conclusion of the Task, thus paints the promised scenes of peace and creature-harmony : —

“The lion, and the libbard, and the bear

Graze with the fearless flocks; all bask at noon Together, or all gambol in the shade

Of the same grove, and drink one common stream. ~Antipathies are none. No foe to man

Lurks in the serpent now; the mother sees

And smiles to see her infant’s playful hand Stretched forth to dally with the crested worm, To stroke his azure neck, or to receive

The lambent homage of his arrowy tongue.”

Pollok, also, sketching the same scenes, anticipates the same restoration of universal harmony throughout creation in all its tribes: —

The.animals, as once in Eden, lived

In peace. The wolf dwelt with the lamb, the bear. And leopard with the ox. With looks of love

The tiger and the scaly crocodile

Together niet at Gambia’s palmy wave.

Perched on the eagle’s wing, the bird of song Singing arose and visited the sun;

And with the falcon sat the gentle lark.

The little child leaped from his mother’s arms

And stroked the crested snake, and rolled unhurt

Among his speckled waves, and wished him home; And sauntering schoolboys slow returning played Alone about the lion’s den, and wove

Into his shaggy mane fantastic flowers.

To meet the husbandman, early abroad

Hasted the deer, and waved its woody head.

And round his dewy steps, the hare, unscared, Sported and toyed familiar with his dog.”

These poets are, of course, no authorities. Nor do we cite them as such. We refer to them to show how these painters of nature were led to copy the description of the prophet, just from its exceeding natwral-. ness. They see in it at once the picture of paradise restored, and the literal interpretation seems entirely natural. Nor do we think that any thing can be more so. Spiritualization here appears forced, awkward, and unnatural. May we not then wonder that Mr Brown should think’ his figurative view placed “beyond all reasonable doubt,” and that our literal and natural sense should be reckoned by him “preposterous” and “ludicrous.” Would any reader of Milton, or Pope, or Cowper, or Pollok, come to this conclusion?

Besides, if we are to spiritualize the future, why not the past? Why may not all the harmony and beauty of creation before the fall be mere figures for the harmony of the human race — the conjugal affection of Adam and Eve? If the millennial concord of the

animals be a mere figure, what reason can be given why the paradisaical concord should not be the same? Nay, further, if the future concord be a mere figure, the present discord must be the same. Is then the present discord no reality? Are there no beasts of prey to be found upon the earth, but only men of angry and quarrelsome natures? But if it be evident that the present discord is a literal reality, why should not the future harmony be the same? Shall the curse be real, but the blessing a figure? Is the curse not to be removed at all? Are the groans d&creation not to cease; or to cease only by creation itself ceasing to be? Is there any thing either “preposterous” or “ludicrous” in supposing that God’s goodly handiwork shall be fully restored — that creation shall cease to groan — that the beasts of the field shall no longer devour one another ?*

Mr Brown’s chief argument for the spiritual interpretation is the latter part of the ninth verse, “for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord.” Let us give his own words —

“But it is put beyond all reasonable doubt by the reason assigned for this state of things, namely, that

* Dr Chalmers remarks, ‘‘ It seems a most perplexing law, that of animals obviously framed for the destruction of each other; and may we not hope for the literal fulfilment of such a revolution as is set forth in these verses.” — ( Darly Scripture Readings, vol. ili, p. 273.)

the knowledge of the Lord (that is, of course, Christian knowledge), shall come and settle down upon every region and spot of earth, as the bed of the ocean is occupied and overspread by its mighty waters. What connection of cause and effect has that spread of truth with a revolution in the animal kingdom? Were it alleged that it was a natural submission of the lower animals, we could understand how it would be facilitated by the advancing tide of civilization under Christian influence. But as that has nothing to do with the prediction, so it is not the thing contended for. There is, then, but one feasible sense that can be put upon the words, namely, that when the knowledge of the Lord shall work itself into the texture of human society all over the world, universal peace shall come in its train. We see its working already, ‘The effect of righteousness shall be peace.’ And all we have in this prophecy is the same thing wrought upon a larger scale, over a world that has so long been the

victim of its own ferocious and venomous passions,”* On this statement we offer the following remarks : — lst, A similar “connection of cause and effect” is not uncommon in other parts of Scripture. We shall give a few specimens: — Joel 1, 12, “The vine is dried up, and the fig-tree languisheth; the pomegranate-tree, * Pp, 200, 201.

the palm-tree also, and the apple-tree, even all the trees of the field are withered; because joy is withered away from the sons of men.” Must the vine, and jig-tree, and pomegranate, &c. not mean literal trees, but human beings, because it is said that they are to wither when joy withers from the sons of men? Might not Mr Brown ask, “What connection of cause and effect has that spread of truth with a revolution in the vegetable kingdom?” Jer. xii. 4, “How long shall the land mourn and the herbs of every field wither for the wickedness of them that dwell therein; the beasts are consumed, and the birds, because they (the inhabitants) said he shall not see our last end.” Where, we may ask, is the connection here? Must the beasts and birds mean human beings, because they are said to be consumed on account of the prevailing wickedness of the land? Isaiah xlix. 13, “Sing, O heavens, and be joyful, O earth, and break forth into singing, O mountains, for the Lord hath comforted his people.” How is the “for” to be explained here? Are the heavens, the earth, the mountains, to be spiritualized into men of various passions, because they are called on to rejoice by reason of Jehovah’s consolations to his people? These are a few out of the very many passages entirely parallel to that which we are discussing. No one has

ever found any difficulty in understanding them without having recourse to a figure, and why should any greater difficulty be found in interpreting literally the language of the eleventh of Isaiah?

2d, It is matter for consideration how far the connection implied by “for? in the passage before us, as

well as in these others, is one of strict and direct cause

and effect; or one of mere collocation and proximity. Does the departure of joy from the sons of men actually

and directly cause the fig-tree to. wither; or is this

connection more indirect, circuitous, and remote? The

answer to such queries would go far to neutralize the statement of Mr Brown. It is plain that in many of these passages the connection is more that of time than positive causality.

3d, If it be absurd to say that the restored harmony of the creatures is produced by the universal spread of

holiness, will it not be equally absurd to say, that.

their discord was produced by man’s sin? Yet do we not all admit the latter fact? Was not man’s transgression the cause of creation’s curse? Oan Mr Brown

tell us how “the creature has been made subject to -

vanity, not willingly,” but on account of Adam’s sin?

Might he not ask, “What connection of cause and

effect has man’s apostacy with a revolution in the animal kingdom?” We do not profess to be able fully to unfold the connection between these two things. It is a connection established by the sovereign Jehovah in his infinite wisdom, and in subservience to his mighty purposes. But it is not at all more preposterous to suppose that man’s return to God should be followed by creation’s deliverance from the curse, than it is to believe that man’s departure from God should have been the cause and origin of that curse. Nay, we confess that to us ‘nothing appears more likely. It is altogether in harmony with the Divine purpose and procedure. Sin introduced the curse upon the lower creation; does it not appear likely that holiness should expel it?

Mr Brown speaks of the passage as signifying the “taming of men’s passions;” but he enters on no particulars.* Yet surely he ought to have done so, and not have contented himself with a comment so vague and general. We might ask such questions as the following: Why should the 4th verse respecting the poor, the meck, and the wicked, be so literal, and the 6th be so entirely figurative? Again, though we can

* Following the same spiritualizing method, many anti-millennarian commentators affirm, that the 96th and 98th Psalms, in which all creation is called on to rejoice in prospect of the advent, are to be understood spiritually. The field is said to “denote the Jewish polity,” and the “trees of the wood may signify the Gentiles.” — Remarks on the Book of Psalms as prophetic of Messiah, London: Burns, 18438, p. 269.

spiritualize a wolf, and a leopard, and a young hon, and a bea, as meaning men of fierce passions, yet what shall we make of the kid, and the calf, and the fatling, and the cow, and the ox, and the young ones, and the little child, and the sucking child, and the weaned child? What do all these mean? What nature, or character, or temper does the cow or the fatling represent? Mr Brown does not tellus, And few commentators have tried to do so. Some, however, have done it. Glassius, for instance, has tried to make out the meaning of a cow and a calf, &c.; but as the words occur in several places of the prophets, and generally with a bad meaning, he comes to little that is satisfactory.* -It is curious that such words as the cow, the kid, the calf, should be so often used in Scripture in a bad sense, that is, as figures for evid men — not for men of mild dispositions and domestic habits, as commentators would lead us to believe. Hence Jerome, in noticing the id, in the verse before us, takes special care to tell us that it does not refer to one of those who were to be on the left hand of the Judge, but one of the sacrificial goats — non qui a sinistris est, sed qui emmolatur in pascha domini. A calf, in like manner, decording to Glassius, is the figure of luxury and lasciviousness,y nor is there any instance of its being

* Philologia Sacra, pp. 1720, and 1776. +P 178:

used to denote what is gentle. We may say the same of the cow; nay, it is remarkable that the very word used by the prophet here (-;5) is that used in the

22d Psalm (verse 12,) to denote the fierce enemies of

Christ, “many bulls (=sy¢) have compassed me;”

the only difference being, that the one is masculine

and the other feminine. But to show that this makes no difference, the very same word in the feminine is used in Amos iv. 1, in a bad sense, denoting, according to Gesenius, “the luxurious women in Samaria.” Thomas Scott tries to give a meaning to these animals in accordance with his theory: “The selfish, the penurious, the rapacious, the contentious, the ambitious, the savage, the subtle, and the malicious, would lose their peculiar base dispositions, and become harmless, sincere, peaceable, benevolent, and affectionate; they would live together in harmony, hearken to instruction, and be guided by gentle persuasions and entreaties.” As another specimen of spiritualization we give the following from Jerome: “These things the Jews and our Judaizers contend should be still future and literal; to take place in the end of the world; ail beasts being restored to gentleness, and the wolf and lamb brought to feed together, their former fierceness being laid aside. We ask them, do they mean to take all literally, and allow no room for spiritual blessings? Must the root, and the rod, and the flower be literal?

Is it worthy of the Lord that the wolf and the lamb should feed together, &c. If they answer, that it is in accordance with the blessedness of that age, that men should then enjoy all good things; let them hear from us that there is nothing good but virtue, and nothing evil but vice, Hence the Stoics, who are at one with us in this opinion, call nothing good but honesty and virtue, nothing evil but depravity. We make these brief remarks to show that our Judaizers are snoring in a profound slumber. But according to the quickening Spirit the meaning is easy. Paul, for instance, was a wolf who first persecuted and tore the church; he dwelt with the lamb, that is, either with Ananias, by whom he was baptized, or Peter, to whom it was said, ‘feed my lambs.’ The lion, the sheep, and the calf, in like manner, dwell together, which we see daily in the church, the rich and the poor, the mighty and the low, kings and private men, dwelling together, and governed by little children, that is, by apostles and apostolic men, unskilled in speech, though not in knowledge. Their families also are joined together, that it may be fulfilled, ‘ their young ones shall lie down together. The lion shall not eat flesh, but straw; that is simple food. By straw I think that simple words are to be understood in Scripture; but by corn the sense that is contained in the letter. For it happens often that men of the world, ignorant of mysteries, feed upon the simple reading of the Scriptures. ‘The infant, also, who is a child in malice, puts his hand upon the hole of the asp, and puts to flight the demons from the bodies of men, assailed by them. But the weaned child, who is no longer nourished by the milk of infancy, but feeds on solid food, puts his hand into the den of the cockatrice, that is, into the very abode of Satan, and draws him out thence. Hence power was given to apostles to tread on serpents, &c. These envenomed animals cannot hurt or kill those who have made their dwelling in the holy mountain of God, which is the church.”* To such shifts have commentators, ancient and modern, been driven, rather than take the simple meaning of the word of God!+ But even though we could spiritualize all these animals, as mentioned in the 11th of this prophet, what are we to do with the 65th, where, at the conclusion of verse 25th, it is said, “And dust shall be the serpent’s meat.” What are we to understand by this?

* Works, vol. iv. pp. 41, 42, in Com. Zs. chap. xi.

+ Wemyss, in his Key to the Symbolical Language of Scripture, explains the leopard, and the lamb, and the bear, and the cow; but he leaves untouched the calf, and the failing, the kid, dc.

Must we say with Jerome, that it means “that the devil, who was formerly fed by the deaths of men, now only feeds on’ those who are dust and earth,” — guod diabolus qua prius homanum mortibus pascebatur eos tantum comedat qui pulvis et terra sunt.* Or shall we not take the obvious and simple meaning which harmonizes the whole scene, viz. that while, during the millennial state, all the other animals are restored to their primeval condition, the serpent is still to retain his badge of the curse, as being the instrument of its introduction, and remain a, terrible memorial of sin?

We conclude these remarks with this observation, that though commentators seem to take it for granted that the wolf dwelling with the lamb, &c., is a common figure for the union of men of fierce passions, &c., they give no parallel example. We are not aware of any similar picture. The figure which is evidently floating in their minds is one quite different. It is not that the wolf dwells with the lamb, but that the wolf becomes a lamb. This we admit to be a common figure of speech. The other we deny to be so. An instance of this we give in the words of the old Latin hymn upon the conversion of Saul, beginning,

* Vol. iv. p. 221,

CHAPTER Xxv. 8. 175

“Pastore percusso, minas
Spirabat et czedes lupus,” &c.

In which, in the fifth stanza, the figure and the words are employed.

“Ex hoste miles, ex lupo

Agnus.” And in that other Latin hymn upon the same subject, of which we cite the third stanza, which has been thus

translated or paraphrased : —

“He who, filled with threatenings, sped
Chains and death preparing;
By a gentle hand is led
With a child-like bearing.
Like a raging wolf he came,
But he goes a gentle lamb.”

§ 2, CHarrer xxv. 8.

The testimony of this passage in favour of a pre-millennial advent is very strong; for it makes -resurrection antecedent to Israel’s earthly blessedness and glory. It is, moreover, one of a series occurring in this prophet, all of which occur in the same position and connection, establishing the priority of resurrection to the triumphs of the latter day.

Accordingly, Mr Brown sets himself to blunt the edge of it, by attempting to show that it does not refer to corporeal resuscitation but to spiritual revival, which he affirms to be amore “delightful meaning” than the other. As to the delightfulness of the meaning I shall enter into no question with him; the only point before us being as to whether it is the true meaning, the meaning intended by the Holy Spirit in inditing the words, and the meaning asserted by the apostle Paul in citing this prophecy. Were delightfulness the test of truth in such a question, how easily might Mr Brown himself be compelled to give up his belief in the restoration of the Jews to their own land. For the argument with which non-believers in Israel’s restoration press us is just this, “is not a revival in the church a far higher and more delightful sense to affix to the prophetic declarations regarding Israel’s restoration, than the literal re-plantation of the literal Israel to their own literal soil?” In spiritualizing this passage, Mr Brown does not follow the majority of anti-millennarian interpreters. Most of them, such as Matthew Henry, take the words in their natural sense.* But others, such as the Dutch Annotators, Thomas Scott, Piscator, Faber, &c. spirit- * See also Peters on Job, p. 896, and Lord Barrington’s theological works, vol. iii. p. 222. Ridgely quotes the passage in proof of the resurrection, and after remarking that the apostle cited it with this reference, he adds, ‘‘therefore we cannot

but think that the prophets and the church in their day understood the words in the same sense.” Vol. ii. p. 184.

ualize it: differing however in their expositions, some referring it to the refreshing of the church, others to the national revival of the Jews.

It appears to me that the expression “he will swallow up death in victory” has but one meaning, a meaning which has been fixed by inspiration. The Apostle Paul (1 Cor. xv. 54) evidently understood it of resurrection and of nothing else. His language, in citing it, is very explicit: “When this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then (rore, then, but not till then) shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, (6 Aoyos 6 yer eaumeevos)death is swallowed up in victory.”

But if this passage refer literally to the resurrection, then there can be no millennium before the advent, as any reader of the passage will at once discover; for not only does the fall of Antichrist immediately precede this resurrection, as Mr B. admits, but the restoration of Israel to their own land, with all its accompanying events, immediately follows. I cannot imagine any passage or series of passages more clear and conclusive in favour of the pre-millennial advent. Their order runs thus : —

Destruction of Antichrist,
Resurrection of the just,
Restoration of Israel,

y!

It is evident that Mr Brown felt this. He saw that if the words be admitted to refer singly to the resurrection, as the Apostle declares that they do, then the pre-millennial advent follows by direct and irresistible inference. He saw, moreover, that the only way of avoiding this conclusion, and disentangling his system from this difficulty, was by denying the reference of the prophet’s words to resurrection. And in doing so he manifests no misgivings; he speaks with singular confidence, and is not slow to condemn those who differ from him, and do not admit what he calls the “delightful sense” of the passage, but adhere rigidly to the interpretation of the Apostle. I do think he should, in this place especially, have used language of greater hesitation in stating his own interpretation, and greater forbearance towards those who differ from him, seeing it requires very strong proof indeed, proof of the most positive nature, to make one depart from the declaration of an Apostle, and adopt a sense neither sanctioned by him nor founded upon the natural meaning of the words. Yet Mr Brown tells us, that “the one direct and immediate object of the whole prediction, is to announce the gospel church as shedding its blessing upon all lands;” and that to refer it to resurrection is to “drag it out of its proper connection.” <A bold step this for one who had before his

eyes these words of him that cannot lie, “Then shall come to pass the saying that is written, death is swallowed up in victory.” Bolder far than any step yet taken, or any flight yet ventured on by any millennarian dreamer in his most “revolting speculations;” aye, and we venture to say “more subversive of the fundamental truths of the Word of God,” than any of those interpretations which he so sharply condemns. Had a millennarian writer thus ventured to set aside an Apostle’s interpretation, what charges of heresy, neology, laxity, would have been brought against him! But 1 know of no millennarian who has ever taken such a liberty with the Word of God.

Yet he cannot, of course, get altogether over the plain words of the Apostle. They are a barrier which it is not easy to overleap. Had it not been for them he would have had no difficulty in spiritualizing the words entirely. But the language of Paul is too distinct to allow of this. Accordingly, he admits that ultimately this prophecy will be fulfilled in the resurrection, — that the resurrection of the body here, as in another passage, may be seen “looming through the other, and almost absorbing it.” And thus the credit of the Apostle is saved: “For,” says Mr Brown, “if the resurrection of the church’s sleeping dust were not in the saying, the Apostle could not have said that it was.”* But all that Mr Brown will allow to the Apostle is, that it is i the words. Nothing more! This is a bare enough admission when inspired words are so very plain. We should certainly have expected a fuller admission; for what does it amount to but just this: “the thing may perhaps be i the words, but certainly it is not the thing which they predict.” Accordingly he does not hesitate to say here, that resurrection is not the primary meaning of the prediction! Lest we should be thought to misrepresent him in a matter so serious as this, we give his words, merely premising, that some of the italics are ours, and that the capitals in which “one” is printed are ours : —

“Of course, if the resurrection of the church’s sleeping dust were not in the saying, the apostle could not have said that it was. But the question is, not what is iz the words, but what is the immediate object of them as they stand in the prediction of this chapter? Now, we have no hesitation in replying to this, that

the onE direct and immediate object of the whole pre-

* Swedenborg states something of the same idea, “the spiritual sense does not appear in the literal sense, being within it, as the soul in the body.” Devine Revelations, vol. i. p. 373. This is not unlike the “looming through,” in so far as we understand the meaning of either,

diction (!) is to announce the Gospel Church as shedding its varied blessings upon all lands.”*

“This, however, is no reason why a passage which directly and immediately points to the church’s present state, but which is so expressed as to take in its eternal state too, should be dragged out of rts proper connection (/) thereby depriving us of a present truth, in order the more surely to put us in possession of a future one.”+

Here then we are told that the prophecy “directly and immediately pointed to the church’s present state,’ — only it is “so expressed as to take in its eternal state too!” One would have supposed that if there are to be two meanings, the prumary one must be that which the apostle declares to be so.t Yet Mr Brown gives a bold negative to such an idea. We

cannot help thinking that he intended to state the

ae bx 206, + P. 207.

y The apostle makes this prophecy to refer to the future state, not the present. Was not Mr B. bound to give special reasons for referring it to the present? Yet he has not given any. Are we not to abide by the apostle’s inspired interpretation, and regard it as the true,the primary, the direct meaning? If not, let reasons be given for calling another meaning the primary one. But in such a case, they ought to be very strong and special. The apostle gives no hint of another sense. Whence then arises the necessity for finding another? Why is Mr B. so anxious to get another, — nay, to make that other the primary, and the apostle’s the subordinate?

reverse of the above, — viz. that the prophecy directly and immediately points to the eternal state, but it is so expressed as to take in the present state also. Yet after all, this cannot be his meaning; for he speaks about its being “dragged out of its proper connection,” though whether this dragging is done by us or the Apostle does not appear. All we wish to do is to take the passage in the sense in which Paul took it. He took it in its proper connection. And surely we cannot be accused of this “dragging,’ when we simply follow the Apostle. Is it not Mr B. who drags it out of its proper connection, seeing he denies to it that primary meaning which Paul affixes to it. He adds, —

“At the latter day, when pure Christianity shall overspread the world, and the church shall have shaken herself from the dust and put on her beautiful garments, a glorious manifestation of all these attendants and fruits of the gospel shall be given; and this is just the burden of the prediction as it les embosomed in this particular chapter; it is such a display of these four things as shall come the nearest to the heavenly state; such a display of them that the most natural expression of it comes to be nothing else

but a description of the celestial state itself.”*

* P. 207.

Here we have the language varied, but the statement repeated. We are told, “this is just the burden of the prediction, as it lies embosomed in this particular chapter. Now, as it lies embosomed in no other chapter, and as the Apostle evidently refers to the resurrection as “just the burden of the prediction,” we are ata loss what to say. Surely Mr Brown has written these sentences hastily, without giving himself time to consider the danger with which they are fraught. But let us quote again: —

“She is to be a dead church no longer. Languor and lethargy shall no more stupefy her spirit and paralyze her exertions. ‘He will swallow up death in victory’ by a glorious resuscitation of the church from all the deadness which characterized her. Victorious now over her carnal self, she shall spring up with all the freshness and vigour of a new existence, — with a buoyancy and elasticity which will contrast strangely with her former torpor, — and go forth to renovate society, and pour over the face of a dead world the light of life. Like a Sun of Righteousness she shall arise in the light and heat of her blessed Master, with healing in her wings, quickening and sanctifying all the relationships of social life, and all the operations of enterprise and industry, which shall accordingly seem all instinct with a new life. And

184 ° WHAT DOES MR BROWN MEAN?

sufferings unto death for Jesus’ sake shall then be at an end: ‘ He will swallow up death in victory.’ All the humiliations and depressions, and ‘ deaths oft,’ to which the church has been so long subject, shall then be exchanged for the undisputed victory of her principles and cause.” * 3

This is a fuller explanation of what Mr Brown understands by the expression in the prophet: “It is the resuscitation of the church from all that deadness which before had characterized her.” But here we are brought to a stand. For after having given this as its meaning, he adds another: “Sufferings unto death fcr Jesus’ sake will be at an end; He will swallow up death in victory.” Now these two meanings are totally irreconcileable. Which of the two does Mr Brown adopt? If the former, let him adhere to it — if the latter, then let him give up the former; for assuredly the resuscitation of a dead church, and the cessation of martyrdoms, are quite different things. Yet Mr Brown says of his exposition, “All is homogeneous!” And he adds : —

“<The resurrection-state is predicted in many passages of Scripture whose immediate subject is admitted to be the mzllennial state; both states, therefore, must

* Pp, 208, 209.

be contemporaneous.’ The reader will now see through the fallacy upon which this plausible argument 1s based. The resurrection-state is i these passages; but is not the direct and immediate subject of the prediction (!) it is the ultimate sense of the words; but in so far as it is so, the millennial state itself is mo¢ in them. It is two stages of advancement. The apostles, in quoting them, have picked out of them (/) that ultimate and perfect sense of them which alone suited their purpose.” *

This is perhaps, the boldest statement of the whole. It seems to us like giving the direct negative to the Apostle’s statement. He says, “Then shall come to pass the saying that is written.” But Mr B. says, “This is not the direct and immediate subject of the prediction.” But further he adds, “The apostles in quoting them have picked out of them that ultimate and perfect sense which alone suited ther purpose.” + This, we must say, is unadvisedly spoken. One more quotation : — :

“What a delightful sense of the prediction is this! And how much, accordingly, are wedeprived of by those

wi, aL,

+ Thus the Neologian Commentator Jaspis, writes upon this passage mors in illo loco (Is. xxy. 8,) est miseria, qua Jesus Judeos liberaturus dicitur: Paulus vero commode ad suam rem transtulit, Vol, i. p. 114.

who would carry us straight into the eternal state with these words, — over the head of all that is ¢errestal in the meaning of them.” *

We leave it to others to say whether this sense is delightful or not: We shall only say, that all that is delightful in it might have been obtained without doing violence to a plain prophecy. The thing may be delightful in itself, but the question is, whether it is to be found in this passage. As to those “who would carry us straight into the eternal state with these words,” we can only add, that if he means the resurrection-state, then the Apostle was one of those whom he condemns. For assuredly his words have not the slightest reference whatsoever to anything but a resurrection-state. He does carry us straight into that glorious state, for he speaks of no other. Seeing then that the Apostle interprets the words of Isaiah for us, and tells us that their true fulfilment is the resurrection, the question naturally arises, how does Mr B. manage to extract another fulfilment, — or what reason does he give for insisting on another interpretation different from the Apostle’s, — why should he be so anxious to deny that the Apostle’s interpretation is the primary, and maintain that there is another which is the direct and primary one? We confess that there

* P 20g; appears to us only one answer to those queries: “his theory demands it.” Were it not for this, there need nave been no “dragging the passage out of its connection,” no charging the apostles with “picking out that ultimate sense which suited their purpose,” no denial of that true primary and perfect sense which Paul affixed to it so pointedly as to lead every unbiassed mind to the conclusion that there was no other more primary and more direct! But are the urgencies and necessities of a theory a valid reason for such a procedure? Such urgencies are the strongest a priori evidence against its soundness, — a clear evidence of felt perplexity and helplessness on the part of its maintainers.*

We dislike the theory of “accommodation,” even in its most restricted sense; and the words “then shall be fulfilled,” are plain enough to show that it was no accommodation which the Apostle was attempting in the quotation before us, but that it was to one of the clearest and directest of all fulfilments which prophecy

* Dr Bush is sorely perplexed by the explicitness of the Apostle’s words. But he gives us an alternative; either to suppose that he merely used the words of the prophet, “without assuming that they were originally intended to refer” to resurrection; or that we must bring the apostle’s statements about resurrection into accordance with the prophets, 7. e. explain away both. Anastasis, p. 113.

can have, that he was directing the reader’s eye. That system must be at a loss, that requires to press into its service a theory so fraught with danger. “It is more philosophical (says a writer in the Bible Cyclopedia, with something of irony in his words) to consider the Old Testament passages as having the meaning which the Apostle ascribes to them, than suppose our own interpretation of them to be correct, or attempt to explain

them in an accommodative or even typical sense.” *

§ 3. Caaprer txv. 17, & txvi. 22.

These passages Mr Brown unhesitatingly pronounces figurative; but he offers no proof of his opinion. This is the more unaccountable, because he contends for the literal sense of the passages in Peter and in the Apocalypse, in which the same words occur.t

* Article Accommodation, vol. i. p, 44. See also Haldane on the Romans, vol. i. p. 106, vol. ii. p. 398. Even such men as Crellius (the Socinian) and Krause, do not contend for accommodation here, but understand the prophet as pointing to the resurrection, and the apostle as quoting him in his natural and literal sense.

++ Dr Hopkins, (of America,) A.D. 1793, on the other hand, does not hesitate to say in reference both to Peter and the Revelation, “by the new heaven or the new earth, is meant the work of redemption, or the church redeemed by Christ.” Treatise on the Millennium, p. 48. So also Mr Cole on 2 Peter iii. 13, says that by new heavens and new earth, is meant “a new Jerusalem, ora

It was certainly to be expected that he should give some reason for making such a difference. Yet he merely affirms that, “in Isaiah, nothing can be more evident than that the change immediately in -view is a MORAL one.” ‘This is strong language; and, when not followed by an attempt at proof, more confident than there was warrant for; especially seeing that many who were no millennarians think the opposite the more evident of the two interpretations. Mr Brown’s statement is as follows: —

“To the ‘new heavens and the new earth’ of chap. lxv. 17, we call the reader’s attention as one of the most decisive examples of our principle of interpretation. In Jsatah, nothing can be more evident than that the change immediately in view is a moral one. In Peter (2 Pet. iii. 13,) and in John (Rev. xxi. 1,) it is equally evident that the change meant is a physical one. Isaiah explains himself in the very next breath (or rather the Lord by him,) saying, ‘be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that. which I create: For, new order of things under the gospel dispensation.” Comment, on Proph., vol. ii. p. 3872.

Turrettine quotes this verse of Isaiah among the first of his proofs for the indestructibility of the literal earth. Zocus xx. Quest 5. sect. 8. So also does Bishop Pearson. Dr Chalmers seems not to have had an ideabut that it was to be taken literally;

and he speaks of ‘‘the curse being fully removed, and earth rendered more productive.” Serzpt, Readings, vol. iii. p. 389, - behold, Z create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.’ (verse 18:) whereas Peter’s detail of the physical changes which the present system is to undergo, renders it quite as clear that a physical renovation is what he intends. And yet, the Apostle’s annowncement is in the bosom of the prophets; and Peter saw it there. The ‘new heavens and the new earth, in its amplitude, as promised to the church, is not realized in any mere renovations of the face of the church. It is true, that ‘if any man be in Christ, there is a new creation, (xaivy xriois,) ‘old things are passed away, behold, all things are become new, (2 Cor. vy. 17.) And it is true, that when he creates Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy, he will bring out a little more of this ‘ new creation.’ But Peter sees — as every one who compares Scripture with Scripture will see

with him — something more than all this in Isaiah’S

words, and refuses to hold them fulfilled till ‘ He that. sitteth in the throne shall say, behold, I make all

things new,” (Rev. xxi. 5.)

“From overlooking this principle, some drag the

Apostle into the millennium, endeavouring to show that, by the conflagration of this system of ours, he merely means an entire political and moral change; while others commit the same error in the opposite

direction, dragging the prophet forward into the new

TO DR‘URWICK. 191

heavens and the new earth, physically understood; thus introducing inextricable confusion into what is otherwise as clear as it is beautiful.”

In opposition to this, we give the statement of another anti-millennarian, Dr Urwick of Dublin.

“I shall only remark generally, that they, I think, undeniably direct us to anticipate an amazing revolution in the structure and circumstances of the earth itself, to be brought about by the action of fire. The thirteenth verse, ‘ Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for NEW HEAVENS AND A NEW EARTH, WHERE-IN DWELLETH RIGHTEOUSNESS, plainly indicates that another mundane system will arise out of the ruins of the present — that it will be a region of perfect sinlessness — and that the saved look forward to it as their abode with assured expectation founded upon the engagement of their gracious, almighty, and faithful God. His ‘ Promisz,’ which warrants the hope of his people in this particular, is commonly thought to be that of Isaiah in the seventeenth verse of his sixty-fifth chapter, “Behold, I create New HEAVENS and a NEW EARTH; and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.’ And in the twenty-second verse of the following chapter, we read, setting forth the everlasting continuance of this new formation, ‘ As

the NEW HEAVENS and the NEW EARTH, which I will

wi make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.’ In accordance with this sentiment are the promises in the thirty-seventh Psalm, from the eighth to the eleventh verses: ‘those that wait upon the Lord, they shall InnERIT THE EARTH. But the meek shall INHERIT THE EARTH: and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.’ Similar expressions occur elsewhere; and our Lord, in one

of his beatitudes, declares, ‘ Blessed are the meek, for they shall INHERIT THE EARTH,’ So that novel as the thought may be to some persons, it appears to be as correct as it is beautiful and grand, that ‘the Lord mighty

in battle,’ who on the cross ‘spoiled principalities and powers, and made a show of them openly,’ and who age afterageis breaking the yoke of the oppressor and emancipating human souls, will not stay in his career of illustrious achievement till he wrests the very earth itself

from the grasp of its usurper, re-creating it in unrivall- — .” ed purity and glory, and taking possession of it with his

people for immortality as peculiarly his own domain.”*

In regard to Mr Brown’s statements, we must say that this is another of the instances in which it is difficult to know what he would have the real meaning of the passage to be. He tell us that the Apostle’s

announcement is in the bosom of the prophet’s; and,

~~

* Lectures on the Second Advent, pp. 29, 30.

Peter saw it there.” Yet, according to Mr Brown, the two announcements are perfectly different from each other. The conversion of men to God is a very different thing from the physical renovation of the earth; yet it is said that the latter is contained in the former, and that when Isaiah predicted the conversion of multitudes, Peter saw that this must also mean the physical restoration of the earth, — nay, states this to be the object of the prediction, for he says, “we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth.” But if the apostle was pointing the eyes of the brethren to the renovation of the earth upon: the authority of an ancient promise, he must have understood it as a promise to that effect. If the promise was not to that effect, if the prediction merely meant the conversion of men, how could Peter tell the brethren to ground their expectations of a new earth upon it? Must it not have been said at once, “you tell us to look for a new earth, because Isaiah predicted it, yet you tell us ‘that that prediction refers to a mora, and not toa physical change? How can the promise of a moral renovation be the reason for our expecting a physical one? Does each promise of spiritual blessings of necessity contain in its bosom a promise of physical ones? Surely not,” Yet what can Mr Brown mean by the if firmation quoted above?

We understand the Apostle Peter to mean, that he and his fellow-saints were looking for a new heaven and earth, because God had promised it by the mouth of his servant Isaiah. This is Peter’s interpretation of Isaiah. He alludes to no other sense. He takes for granted, that when God promises one thing he did not mean another; that when he promises something physical, he did not mean something moral; and, of course, the converse of this. And are we not bound to take Peter’s interpretation as the true one? Or, at least, was not Mr Brown bound to show how it was not the true one? “It is more philosophical,” says a writer formerly quoted, ‘‘ to consider the Old Testament passages as having the meaning which the apostle ascribes to them, than suppose our own interpretation of them to be correct, or attempt to explain them in an accommodative or even typical sense.”

Regarding the apostolic interpretation of the passage as settling the question, and as teaching us the only true and lawful sense of it, we may yet observe how plentifully the context supplies us with proofs to the same effect. Almost immediately before, it had been said with reference to the restored blessedness of Israel, “Sharon shall be a fold of flocks, and the valley of Achor a place for the herds to lie down in,” (verse 10,) which points to what is physical. Then immediately after the passage under discussion, it is said, “be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create; for behold I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy: and I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people; and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.” That all this is spoken of the literal Jerusalem, and of her physical condition, is plain from what follows: “there shall be no more thence an infant of days; nor an old man that hath not filled his days; for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.” What follows, however, is still more explicit, “they shall build houses and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards and eat the fruit of them; they shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for as the days of a tree shall be my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.” ‘Then, to show us that the state of things predicted is just paradise restored, and all creation, animate and inanimate, brought into blessed harmony as at the beginning, it is added, “the wolf and the lamb shall feed together and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock, and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.”

Are not all these things physical? Yes, surely they are. Is this a low view of the passage? Surely not. It is not a low view of the first chapter of Genesis to say, that it means creation, and how can it be a low view of the 65th of Isaiah to say, that it means new creation? It was nota low view that Peter took when he interpreted the passage of a physical change; it cannot therefore be amiss in us to accord with him. Do we shut out spiritual blessings? No. We admit ‘every spiritual blessing which the whole Bible contains or which God can bestow. We merely add to those spiritual blessings some temporal ones which others would exclude. We would rob the poor world of nothing which God has promised, whether temporal or spiritual. We apply, indeed, this one passage to physical blessings; but what of this? Does this neutralize the thousand other passages in which things spiritual are predicted? Will the world or the church be poorer in their inheritance, because this promise reters to what is physical? Are there to be no physical, no material, no corporeal blessings hereafter? And if so, why should they not be promised? Why should they not form at least some part of the prophetic

word? oF