g Christ and the Church,
_i.e._, concerning the King, and the Kingdom established by Him; so
that some interpreters would rather call him an Evangelist than a
Prophet." In proof of this assertion, he then quotes the passage under
consideration, and closes with the words: "Surely that may suffice!
There are in those words some things too which require explanation; but
I think that things which are so clear should compel even enemies,
against their will, to understand them." In a similar manner he
expresses himself in: _De consensu Evangelistarum_ l. i. c. 31.
_Theodoret_ remarks on this passage (_opp. ed. Hal._ t. ii. p. 358):
"The Prophet represents to us, in this passage, the whole course of His
(Christ's) humiliation unto death. Most wonderful is the power of the
Holy Spirit. For that which was to take place after many generations.
He showed [Pg 321] to the holy prophets in such a manner that they did
not merely hear Him declare these things, but saw them." In a similar
manner, _Justin_, _Irenaeus_, _Cyril_ of Alexandria, and _Jerome_,
express themselves. From the Churches of the Reformation, we shall here
quote the testimonies of two of their founders only. _Zwingle_, in
_Annot. ad h. l._ (opp. t. iii. Tur. 1544, fol. 292) says: "That which
now follows is so clear a testimony of Christ, that I do not know
whether, anywhere in Scripture, there could be found anything more
consistent, or that anything could be more distinctly said. For it is
quite in vain that the obstinacy and perversity of the Jews have tried
it from all sides." _Luther_ remarks on the passage: "And, no doubt,
there is not, in all the Old Testament Scriptures, a clearer text or
prophecy, both of the suffering and the resurrection of Christ, than in
this chapter. Wherefore it is but right that it should be well known to
all Christians, yea should be committed to memory, that thereby we may
strengthen our faith, and defend it, chiefly against the stiff-necked
Jews who deny their only promised Christ, solely on account of the
offence of His cross."

It was reserved to the last quarter of the last century to be the first
to reject the Messianic interpretation. _At a time when Naturalism
exercised its sway, it could no longer be retained._[1] For, if
this passage contains a Messianic prophecy at all, its contents
offer so striking an agreement with the history of Christ, that its
origin cannot at all be accounted for in the natural way. Expedients
were,