and are of no farther value or use, than as conformable to them, and wrapped up in them and with them.

Having seen how little colour there is, from this place of Isaiah, for excluding positive duties, I am next to observe, that there is as little foundation for excluding the merits or satisfaction of Christ. The duties there mentioned are required as conditions, without which no mediation or satisfaction could avail any thing as to the meritorious or efficacious cause of salvation, that stands as before, and is not at all affected with what is there said. The redemption by Christ might notwithstanding be necessary to render all services (moral or positive) accepted: and it is indeed either expressly or tacitly included in all grants of pardon from God. It is a truth so plain in many places of Scripture, and particularly in the Book of Isaiah, and alluded to in this very chapter P, that I need not say more of it. But why will our Objector appeal to Scripture for the "sufficiency of moral things," when he admits not the authority of Scripture? Or why will he here pay any regard to the words of the God of Israel, whom at other times he insults and blasphemes?

ISAIAH V. 26.

AND HE WILL LIFT UP AN ENSIGN TO THE NATIONS FROM FAR, AND WILL HISS UNTO THEM FROM THE END OF THE EARTH; AND, BEHOLD, THEY SHALL COME WITH SPEED SWIFTLY. Our Objector's quarrel here is only with the single word HISSI: and had he made it an objection against the translation only, and not against Scripture itself, he might perhaps have shown some exactness of judgment or delicacy of taste. But by overshooting the mark, as usual, he has lost the advantage. He had been talking just before, of "wine cheering both God and man;" which

Isa. i. 26, 27. See Vitringa's Comment.

Christianity as Old, &c. p. 252.

Ibid. p. 251.

t

has been considered in another places. Then he adds as here follows: "And what is yet stranger, such actions "are attributed to him as can only belong to the lower "rank of creatures, such as hissing, God being in three "places of the Prophets said to hiss; and in one place ", CC TO HISS FOR A FLY THAT IS IN THE UTTERMOST PART OF THE RIVERS OF EGYPT, AND FOR THE BEE THAT IS IN THE LAND OF ASSYRIA." It is not very strange, that languages should abound with figures and metaphors, or that prophecies should contain parables and apt similitudes. What man that knows any thing of language, or letters, would expect otherwise? However, considering that the word HISS is apt to carry with it a low idea, one might wish that our translators had chosen a less offensive word, which might but tolerably have expressed the sense. Besides, the word HISS seems not proper, as not well answering to the original word p. For whether we suppose the metaphor taken from a shepherd's calling to his sheep, or from a bee keeper's calling to his bees y, HISS is not the proper expression for either. Other words might be thought on more expressive of the metaphor, were it necessary to follow the 'figure: but I see no reason for such scrupulous exactness. The general word call would fully express the meaning; and that is sufficient in such cases. Our older translations (as Coverdale's of 1535, and Matthews's of 1537, and the Great Bible of 1539) have CALL UNTO THEM in this place, and, I think, very wisely. The Geneva translators of 1560 first brought in HISS UNTO THEM and they have been followed by Parker's Bible, and by our last translation, too closely. I commend not the older translations for having WHISTLE, 2 in Isa. vii.

See above, p. 132, 133.

Isa. v. 26. vii. 18. Zech, x. 8.

" Isa. vii. 18.

* See Vitringa on Isa. vii. 18. Cleric. in Isa. v. 26.

y See Bochart's Hieroz. part. ii. lib. iv. c. 10. p. 506. Vitringa in Isa. v. 26. 2 So Pool also, in his notes on this text.

18. and BLOW FOR THEM, in Zech. x. 8. The same word CALL would have served better in all the three places. And though the metaphor perhaps would be lost, or obscured, yet decency of expression, without detriment to the sense, would be preserved, which should be looked after, and which is much preferable to a scrupulous exactness that may give offence in such cases. I observe, that the Hebrew word, is made use of in the thirteenth chapter, verse the third, in the same sense, and to the same purpose, as p here, and is there literally rendered CALL: and so might this other word be rendered also without any impropriety. Some indeed have chose whisper a, instead of hiss; which is a word of more dignity: but it dilutes and diminishes the sense. A loud or shrill call seems to be intended in all the three places; for neither do shepherds whisper to their sheep, nor bee keepers to their bees. In short then, I know no better English word than call, to preserve the sense, and at the same time to keep up dignity of expression.

The true and full meaning of the two places in Isaiah is neither more nor less than this: that God having sovereign command over all nations and people, can convene them together from remote and distant quarters, to execute his most righteous judgments. Whenever God gives the signal, or issues out his summons, they will advance with all alacrity to perform his will, though not knowing that his hand is in it. The fly and the bee (in Isa. vii. 18.) denote the Egyptian and Assyrian armies, which should come up with speed from their respective quarters, to execute the Divine vengeance upon Palestine for their flagrant iniquities. The former would come swiftly upon them, like swarms of devouring flies, to infest and annoy them, and to exhaust their blood and juices: and the latter should approach as swarms of angry bees, or wasps, to sting them to death. Such is the Prophet's meaning, veiled under elegant figures; which give new life and

a Lowth and Wells.

strength to his expressions, and render the whole more poignant and more affecting.

ISAIAH XX. 3, 4.

AND THE LORD SAID, LIKE AS MY SERVANT ISAIAH HATH WALKED NAKED AND BAREFOOT THREE YEARS FOR A SIGN AND WONDER UPON EGYPT AND UPON ETHIOPIA; SO SHALL THE KING OF ASSYRIA, &c. The Objector hereupon says b: "How many commands did God give his Prophets, which, if "taken according to the letter, seem unworthy of God,

as making them act like madmen, or idiots!" As for instance," the Prophet Isaiah walked for three years to"gether naked for a sign." The Objector, to do him justice, is not singular in finding fault with this place of the Prophet, nor in his so construing it as if the Prophet went stark naked, and for three whole years together, if the literal interpretation is to be admitted: and upon that supposition, he has some colour for saying, that such a command "seems unworthy of God," as making the Prophet act like a madman, or an idiot. But he too hastily takes for granted that the literal interpretation must necessarily suppose, either that the Prophet went entirely naked, or that he did so for so long a time as three whole years. Interpreters have taken three several ways of interpreting this and the like places in the Prophets some suppose that what is here told was really and literally performed; others, that it was transacted in vision; others, that it is all no more than a parable dictated by God to the Prophet, and by the Prophet recited to the Jews. It will be proper here to examine with some care the strength and merits of these three several interpretations, in the order as I have mentioned them.

I. I shall begin with the first of them, which may be called the literal construction in an emphatical sense. For though all the three constructions are literal, as fol

h Christianity as Old, &c. p. 255.

lowing the literal signification of the words, and as opposed to figurative or metaphorical; yet the first only can be termed literal in a stricter sense, as opposed to visional (if I may so call it) and parabolical. For the literal construction, may be pleaded as follows:

First, It is the most ancient construction, espoused by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and never disputed in those early times. Secondly, The text itself seems to be plain and express: for it is said, HE [ISAIAH] DID SO, WALKING NAKED AND BAREFOOTd: and afterwards, MY SERVANT ISAIAH HATH WALKED NAKED AND BAREFOOT e. Then, thirdly, The fact is represented as a SIGN and a WONDER, D, a strange sight: which, if transacted in idea only, or told as a parable, was no sight to the people at all. Fourthly, It may be added, that if there were not these reasons for the literal interpretation, yet it is a safe and good rule of interpreting, never to recede from the literal construction without a manifest necessity; and there is no such necessity in this case, because the objections made to it are all capable of receiving a just and rational answer, as may appear from what follows:

One pretended difficulty is, the great indecency of the Prophet's going naked about the streets of Jerusalem. But to this it has been answered, that there is no necessity of supposing that he went altogether naked: the Hebrew word does not require any such rigorous construction: besides, if the sense were, quite naked, there would have been no need to add barefoot. Those are said to go naked, in the Scripture phrase, who either go without their upper garments 1, or have put off the habit proper to their station or quality i. Critics and commen

• Eusebius in Isa. c. xx. p. 438. Hieron. in loc. Cyrill. Alexandr. tom. ii. f Isa. xx. 3.

p. 300.

d Isa. xx. 2.

e Isa. xx. 3.

8 Vid. Witsii Miscellan. vol. i. p. 89. Vitringa in loc.

h John xxi. 7. Acts xix. 16. Mark xiv. 52. Conf. Gen. ix. 22, 23. Job xxii. 6. Matt. xxv. 36. 1 Cor. iv. 11. James ii. 15.

J1 Sam. xix. 24. 2 Sam. vi. 20.