is to be in a time that is yet to come, is made certain by the prediction that next follows, of the change at that period of the ferocious and poisonous animals to mildness and harmlessness.

12. Comparison of the lion in eating straw, with the ox. "And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice's den," v. 6-8. Many distinguished commentators have regarded this passage as tropical, and held that the ferocious and poisonous animals are used by a metaphor to denote men of similar natures, and that the prediction is that they shall suppress their evil passions, and live in peace and concord with the righteous, whom they suppose the domestic and tame animals represent. Thus, Theodoret says: "By gentle and ferocious creatures he expresses the different manners of men; likening a rapacious disposition to the wolf, but the mild to a lamb; and again the mixed or varying to the leopard, which is a spotted animal; but the simple and humble to the kid. So he compares to the lion

the proud and imperious; the bold to the ox; and another differing from those to the calf;" and he held that the prediction had its fulfilment in the church of the fourth century in the union of emperors, prefects, and other officers of the imperial government, with the unofficial and poor in the rites and worship of the church. Jerome also spiri

tualizes it in the same manner. Interpreted by the life-giving Spirit, the meaning is obvious. The ́ wolf Paul, who had before persecuted and wounded the church, of whom it was said, Benjamin, a rapacious wolf, dwells with the lamb-either with Ananias, by whom he was baptized, or the apostle Peter to whom it was said, feed my lambs. And the leopard which never before changed its spots, washed in the fountain of the Lord, lies down with the kid not the scapegoat, but that which was slain for the passover! It should be noticed that it is not the lamb and kid that change their habits, but the wolf and leopard imitate their harmlessness. Also the lion, before the most ferocious animal, and the sheep and calf dwell together, as we daily see in the church-the rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, monarchs and subjects dwell together and are governed by little children, by whom we understand the apostles and apostolic men, unskilled in speech but not in knowledge." It is interpreted

on the same theory by Cocceius, also, Vitringa, and commentators generally. They are unquestionably, however, mistaken. If the passage has in fact the meaning which they ascribe to it, it is not, as they assume, by a metaphor that it acquires it. The wolf, leopard, lion, and bear, are not used by that figure, inasmuch as they are themselves the subjects of the affirmation, not the predicates, as they would be were they used metaphorically. In metaphorical expressions universally the figure lies altogether in the predicate, not in the agent or object to which it is applied: as the tempest howls, the wind sighs, the fields smile. In these metaphors it is the verb that is transferred from its natural use and employed in ascribing an act to the tempest, wind, and fields, which they do not literally exert, but that only resembles the effect they produce. If ferocious and meek men had been metaphorized as these writers assume, there would have been a direct affirmation that the one class are the wolf, leopard, lion, and bear, and the other the lamb, kid, ox, and cow. They treat it precisely as though the expression were, Cruel and bloody men are wolves, leopards, lions, and bears; the poor and meek are lambs, kids, oxen, and cows; but the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the cow and the bear shall feed, and the

lion shall eat straw like the ox. Their construction accordingly involves in fact the interpolation of a passage before that of the prophet, declaring men of the two classes to be the animals of the corresponding natures; by which men are made the theme of the several propositions, instead of those brutes; and the subjects of the prediction thereby entirely changed. It is a monstrous violation, therefore, instead of a legitimate interpretation of the passage. Whatever its meaning is, the animals mentioned in it are the subjects of the prediction, not men. If any of the language were used by a metaphor, it would be the verbs, not the nouns that are their nominatives. But the verbs plainly are not employed by a metaphor, as the wolf, leopard, and lion, are undoubtedly capable of the acts ascribed to them. And, moreover, nothing would be gained by supposing them to be used by that figure; as there are no analogous acts which they can be presumed to indicate that would not involve as great a deviation from their present habits as those which these verbs literally express.

Nor is there any other figure in the passage by which men are made the subjects of the prediction. The animals are not used by an allegory as representatives of men of resembling dispositions. None of the numerous writers, who in fact treat them as

though they were employed in that relation, regard the passage as allegorical; and it is certain that it is not from the consideration that there is no express declaration that the wolf, leopard, lion, and other animals, are used as the representatives of men. The allegory always openly announces who it is that the agents or objects which it employs denotes, and what their actions are, also, which it exemplifies. Nor are they used by the hypocatastasis; as in that figure, as well as the metaphor, the trope lies wholly in the predicate, not in the subject to which it is applied; and its chief difference from the metaphor is, that the acts, events, or conditions of one class which it ascribes to its subject in place of another, are compatible with that subject's nature, as well as those which the substituted acts, effects, or conditions are employed to illustrate. Thus, in the command, "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell-fire, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched; for every one shall be salted with fire," the eye, an organ of the body, is substituted for an affection of the mind, and plucking out the eye, put for suppressing or eradicating that affection; but the substituted act is as physically possible to the agent, as the act of restraining