sins.

his proof- "As it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: for this is my covenant unto them when I shall take away their For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." Here, not by any passing remark, but by an elaborate argument, the apostle declares his conviction, that Israel after the flesh has still a part in the promises of God; and if so, it is impossible to accept Mr Waldegrave's conclusion, that the Israel of the Old Testament prophecy is the Christian Church.

But if the conclusion be erroneous, the steps which lead to it must be erroneous also. These we propose now to examine. Our author thinks it "can be very certainly proved that the terms, Israel, Zion, Jerusalem, and the like, which are at times so plainly applied in another than their primary intention in the New Testament Scriptures, are no less certainly sometimes so applied in the Old Testament prophecies."-(P. 417.) We shall consider afterwards the alleged instances from the New Testament of such an application; but in the meantime we turn to the cases adduced from the Old. The first is Isaiah xlix. 1-6, in which passage, while Israel is used of the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh, the same term is employed in a different sense in the clause, "Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified." These words our author applies to "the mystical body of which Christ is the head and his people are the members." Now, to say the least, this application is doubtful, and scarcely sufficient to bear the weight of the sweeping conclusion, that Israel is, in the prophecies, the name of the New Testament Church. Israel seems to us to be the name of the Saviour in the passage quoted; nor do we think that the reference made to it by the apostles proves anything more. "We turn," say they, "to the Gentiles, for so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles." "Set thee," i. e., according to Mr Waldegrave, set the mystical Israel, of whom we are part, and therefore the command is to us. But surely it is more simple and natural to understand the language thus-" I have set my Son to be a light of the Gentiles; and therefore whoever preaches Christ is, by implication, commanded to preach him to the Gentiles." We cannot, therefore, concur in the conclusion, that "in this passage, at least, the term Israel is employed to signify the one Church of the living God." At all events, the name is here applied, primarily at least, to an individual by way of metaphor. The context plainly shews that it is not the nation that is meant, and it is impossible to argue from it

to those more numerous cases where there is nothing in the use of the word to hinder its application to the natural Israel.

The other example given by our author, of the use of "Israel" as a designation of the New Testament Church, is, at first sight at least, much more to the purpose. It is taken from Hosea i. 9, 10. God had said by the mouth of his prophet of the literal Israel, "Call his name Lo-ammi; for ye are not my people." And he says again, "Yet the number of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea; . . . and in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God." But the Apostle Paul (Rom. ix. 22) says, "What if God endured the vessels of destruction, that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. As he saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people which were not my people," &c. It would, indeed, be very unaccountable, if Paul, already engaged upon the very argument which leads him tothe conclusion, "God hath not cast away his people;—all Israel shall be saved," should have intended to intimate that the prophecy in question did not refer to the national Israel. Nor do we think it at all necessary to suppose that this was his intention. Let us notice one or two other instances of the manner in which the New Testament writers employ prophecy. When Matthew quotes the words of Hosea, "Out of Egypt have I called my Son," as fulfilled in Christ's going down to Egypt, does he mean that this was the proper intention and application of Hosea's words? Surely not, for unquestionably the subject of the prophet's discourse was the deliverance of Israel from the land of bondage. When the same evangelist applies the words of Jeremiah respecting Rachael weeping at Ramah to the murder of the innocents at Bethlehem, does he mean that this was the only, or the real, meaning of the prophet's words? No! for Jeremiah certainly spake of the desolation of the land by the captivity of the people. We do not need to inquire whether these prophecies were quoted by way of accommodation, or whether they actually contained a prediction of the events to which they were applied. It is sufficient to shew that they had another application besides that given to them by the evangelist. Again, when Paul says of the preaching of the gospel," Their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the end of the world," does he mean that the psalmist had in his eye the universal proclamation of the message of glad tidings; or does he not rather apply to this subject the words David had spoken of God's handiwork in the

heavens? And so we believe that the apostle uses the words in question of Hosea as an apt illustration of God's mercy in calling the Gentiles, who had been before no people of his. He does not even say, as the evangelist does in the passages referred to, that the prediction was accomplished in the gathering in of the New Testament Church. There is, indeed, another view taken of the apostle's quotation by Hengstenberg,* which will equally serve our purpose. "Several of the ancient expositors," he says, "here assume a sudden transition to the Christian Church; but such would be a salto mortale." And with regard to the quotations in Romans, he says" It is not a mere application, but a real proof, that here forms the question at issue. It is because God had promised to receive again the children of Israel, that he must receive the Gentiles also; for otherwise that divine decree would have its foundation in mere caprice, which cannot be conceived to have any existence in God." Besides, were we, with Mr Waldegrave, to eliminate the natural Israel from Hosea's prediction, the very beauty and antithesis of the prophecy would vanish; for it is not the substitution of another people for rejected Israel which is foretold, but the very nation who are called Lo-ammi are to be called the sons of the living God. And not only so, but in the very place (Palestine) where they were rejected, they are to be chosen again. So that it is not merely the multiplication of Abraham's seed which is promised, but their return to God, and their settlement in their own land.

sup

Such is the whole amount of proof that is offered us in port of the theory, that the Israel of Old Testament prophecy is the Christian Church. But, on the other side, only consider the difficulties to which such a system would give rise. Are all the Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel to be interpreted of the New Testament Church? The answer will be, No. Are all those relating to times subsequent to the Babylonian captivity to be so interpreted? The answer must again be, No; for Zechariah, who prophesied after the captivity, has several predictions which plainly refer to the natural Israel. Are all prophecies referring to New Testament times to be expounded upon this principle? If an affirmative answer be given to this question, we point to many prophecies in which there is no mark of any transition, and which, beginning with a period anterior to the first coming of Christ, stretch away into the distant future. How are these to be interpreted? And we ask again, How are we to ascertain whether a prediction refers to Christian times, without first interpreting it? * Christol., vol. i., p. 209.

So that this system would resolve itself into the propositionInterpret your prophecy, and then we will give you the meaning of it; a rule the feasibility of which we do not deny, though we may well doubt its practical use. If, on the other hand, it be said, that in some prophecies of New Testament times, Israel means the nation, and in others the Church, we still press for some mark or rule by which we shall know when to employ the one, and when the other mode of interpretation.

We promised to consider the passages in the New Testament, in which it is alleged that the terms Israel, &c., are applied to the Church of Christ. Mr Waldegrave attempts no proof. They are "so plainly" applied in this manner, that he seems to think it impossible that any other sense can be put upon them. Let us examine them in the order in which they stand in his note, p. 417. The first is Rom. ix. 6, "For they are not all Israel which are of Israel." The apostle is speaking of his "kinsmen according to the flesh"-the Israelites, to whom pertained the adoption, &c.; and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came. He proceeds to shew that the Word of God was not without effect. And to prove this, he says, "They are not all Israel which are of Israel;" that is, "all who are descended from Israel, according to the flesh, are not the true Israel, but only those of them who inherit Israel's faith." The parallel clause in the next verse explains the meaning "Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called." The true Israel are the elect remnant of the nation. As Olshausen well puts it—" No one can possess the spiritual character who wants the natural descent, and vice versa." Whatever, then, was the apostle's view of the standing of believing Gentiles, it is plain that he does not in this place call them by the name of Israel.

The next passage is John i. 47, "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!" It is strange to find this passage quoted to prove that Israel means the Christian Church. Nathanael was not a Gentile, but a son of Abraham, an Israelite by descent; and an Israelite indeed, because, along with his descent, he inherited the faith of Abraham.

"As many

In the third place, we are referred to Gal. vi. 16: as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." Here we have no help given us, from the context, in determining the apostle's meaning; but surely it is most natural to understand him in conformity with the passages already discussed. "In Christ Jesus," he had said, "neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." And the Israel of God, therefore, are

those who, being circumcised, and therefore of Israel, do not rest upon their outward descent for salvation, but on their spiritual descent from Him who is the Father of the faithful.

Then, as an example of Zion being used for the New Testament Church, our author quotes Heb. xii. 22, to which he also refers a second time in proof of a similar application of Jerusalem. "Ye are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem." Why, the Jerusalem here spoken of is expressly distinguished from the earthly Jerusalem by the epithet heavenly; and, of course, this characteristic must be held as extending to the Mount Zion which is placed in opposition with it. No better proof could be desired that Jerusalem is not recognised by the apostle as the name of the Christian Church, than the fact that when he seeks a suitable figure, it is the heavenly Jerusalem which he selects.

Exactly in a similar manner in Gal. iv. 26, which Mr Waldegrave also quotes, we find the apostle saying, "The Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." Surely the verse which he ought to have quoted is the preceding one, which alone refers to the earthly Jerusalem. But, then, that verse at once disposes of the question in the manner most unfavourable to our author; for the apostle says, "Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children."

The last passage quoted, and one which Mr Waldegrave regards as enunciating the principle on which this application of the terms in question is founded, is Rom. ii. 28, 29: "For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." To whom is the apostle speaking? Hear his own words in verse xvii: "Behold, thou art a Jew, and restest in the law." His address is not to Gentiles; and the true Jew, of whom he speaks, is the Israelite who is also inwardly, that is, in heart, a Jew. But neither here nor elsewhere does Paul, or any other of the apostles, call a Christian Gentile a Jew, or give him the name of Israel.

This conclusion, so diametrically opposed to the assumption of the work before us, ought to have its influence on our views of the Old Testament phraseology. If, in the New Testament, no example can be found of the term Israel being applied to the Church, then still less can we expect to discover such a use of language in the Old Testament prophecies.

On proceeding further, we are enabled to discover the exact