Thoughts on Religion and Other Subjects

er, enlighten, sanctify, and heal them; and that, to obtain this, they must deny themselves, take up the cross, and follow him through suffering and death.

The letter killeth the sense lies hidden in the cypher. A suffering Saviour; a God in humiliation; the circumcision of the heart; a true fast; a true sacrifice; a true temple; two laws; a twofold table of the law; two temples; two captivities;-there is the key to the cypher which Jesus Christ has given to us.

Christ has at length taught us, that these things were but figures, and has explained the true freedom, the true Israelite, the true circumcision, the true bread from heaven, &c.

11. Each one finds in these promises, that which lies nearest to his heart, spiritual or temporal blessings, God or the creature; but with this difference, they who desire the creature, find it promised, but with many apparent contradictions-with the prohibition to love it, and with the command to love and worship God only; whilst they who seek God in the promises, find him without any contradiction, and with the command to love him exclusively.

12. The origin of the contrarieties in Scripture, is found in a Deity humbled to the death of the cross; a Messiah, by means of death, triumphant over death; two natures in Jesus Christ; two advents; and two states of the nature of man.

As we cannot ascertain a man's character, but by reconciling its contrarieties, and as it is not sufficient to infer from a train of congruous qualities, without taking the opposite qualities into tlre account, so to determine the meaning of an author, we must shew the harmony of the apparently contradictory passages.

So that to understand the Scripture, there must be a sense in which the seemingly contradictory passages agree. It is not enough to find a sense which is borne out by many analogous passages; we must find one which reconciles those that seem to differ. Every author has a meaning with which all seemingly incongruous passages harmonize, or he has no meaning at all.

We cannot say that the Scriptures or the prophets have no meaning. They had too much good sense for that. Then we must look out for a meaning, which reconciles all their incongruities.

Now the Jewish interpretation is not that true meaning; but, in Jesus Christ, all the apparent contradictions completely harmonize.

The Jews would not know how to reconcile the termination of the kingdom and principality predicted by Hosea, with the prophecy of Jacob.

If we take the law, the sacrifices, and the kingdom for the ultimate reality, it were impossible to reconcile all the assertions of the same author, the same book, or the same chapter. This sufficiently indicates

the meaning of the writer.

13. It was not allowed to sacrifice out of Jerusalem, which was the place that the Lord had chosen, nor even to eat the tenths elsewhere.

Hosea predicted that they should be without a king without a prince, without a sacrifice, and without a seraphim. This is now accomplished, for they cannot legally sacrifice out of Jerusalem.

14. When the word of God, which is necessarily true, if false literally, it is true spiritually. Sit thou on my right hand. Literally this is false: it is spiritually true. The passage speaks of God after the manner of men, and means no more than that God has the same intention, as men have when they cause another to sit at their right hand. It indicates the purpose of God, not the mode of fulfilling it.

So when it is said, God has received the odour of your incense, and will recompense you with a good and fruitful land; it is only affirmed, that the same intention, which a man has, who, pleased with your incense, promises a fruitful land, God will have for you, because you have had the same intention with respect to him, that a man has to him to whom he gives perfume..

15. The end of the commandment is charity. Whatever in it appears to fall short of this end is figurative; for since there is but one end, all that does not bear upon it in express terms, must do so figuratively.

God diversifies the mode of inculcating this one precept, to satisfy that weakness in us, which seeks variety, by giving a variety which leads us ever towards the one thing needful. For one thing only is necessary, and we love variety; God has met both difficulties, by giving a variety which leads to that one thing needful.

16. The Rabbins only regard as figurative, the breasts of the spouse, and such things as do not literally express the sole object of temporal good which they

have in view.

17. There are men who see plainly that the only enemy of man is his concupiscence, which leads him away from God; and that the only good is not a fertile land, but God. As for those who believe that man's supreme joy is in the flesh, and his bane in that which robs him of sensual delight, let them take their fill and die; but for those who seek God with all their heart, who have no sorrow but absence from him, and no desire but to enjoy him, no enemies but those who hinder their approach to him, and who mourn, that by such enemies, they are surrounded and oppressed; let them be comforted. For them there is a deliverer; for them there is a God. A Messiah has been promised to deliver man from his enemies. A Messiah is come, but it is to deliver him from his iniquities.

18. When David foretels that the Messiah shall deliver his people from their enemies, a carnal mind might understand him to mean the Egyptians; and in that case, I could not shew that the prophecy was accomplished. But it is very possible also, to understand that he meant our iniquities. For in truth, the Egyptians are not men's real enemies, but their iniquities are. The term enemy then is equivocal.

But if, in common with Isaiah and others, he says also, that Messiah shall deliver his people from their iniquities, then the ambiguity is removed, and the equivocal sense of the word "enemy," is reduced to the simple sense of iniquities. If he had really meant sins, he might properly convey the idea by the term

enemies; but if enemies were his simple meaning, iniquities would not express it.

Now, Moses, David, and Isaiah, all use the same terms. Who then is prepared to say that they have not the same meaning, and that the meaning of David, who, beyond a doubt, intends iniquities, when he speaks of enemies, is not the same with that of Moses when he speaks of enemies?

Daniel in chapter ix. prays for the deliverance of his people from the bondage of their enemies; but he evidently meant their sins: and in proof of this, we find it said, that Gabriel came to assure him that his prayer was heard, and that but seventy weeks were determined to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins; and that then the Redeemer-the Holy of Holies, should bring in an everlasting righteousnessa righteousness, not merely legal, but eternal.

When once this mystery of a two-fold meaning is disclosed to us, it is impossible not to perceive it. Read the Old Testament with this notion, and see if the sacrifices were the true sacrifice; if descent from Abraham was the true cause of the love of God; if the land of promise were the true place of rest: certainly not. Then they were types. Look then in the same way at all the ordained ceremonies, and all the commandments which speak not directly of love; you will find them all typical.*

The subject of types in the Old Testament has been a fertile theme of speculation. It may not be irrelevant or useless to introduce here some remarks of Ernesti on the "Elements of Interpretation," with a note by the Translator, Professor Stuart.

Properly speaking, there is no typical sense of words. Types are not words but things, which God has designated as signs of future events. Nor is any special pains necessary for the interpretation of them. The explanation of them, which the Holy Spirit himself has given, renders them intelligible. Beyond his instructions on this subject, we should be very careful never to proceed. As for those, who maintain a typical design in all parts of the Scripture, they certainly display very

CHAPTER XIV.

JESUS CHRIST.

THE infinite distance between body and mind, figúratively represents the infinitely more infinite dis-tance between mere intellect, and pure love; for that love is supernatural.

The pomp of external show has no attraction to men engaged deeply in intellectual research. The greatness of intellectual men is imperceptible to the rich, to kings and conquerors who are but carnally great. The grandeur of that wisdom, which comes from God, is invisible both to merely sensual, and merely intellectual men. Here then are three different orders of distinction.

Great minds have their peculiar empire, their re ́nown, their conquests. They need not the sensual

little judgment or consideration; for they lay open the way for the mere arbitrary introduction of types into every part of the Bible. The design of the Holy Spirit, in the mention of this or that thing in the Scriptures, can be understood only so far as he himself has explained it, or afforded obvious grounds of explanation.

If it be asked, How far are we to consider the Old Testament as typical? I should answer, without any hesitation; just so much of it is to be regarded as typical, as the New Testament affirms to be so; and NO MORE. The fact, that any thing or event under the Old Testament dispensation was designed to prefigure something under the New, can be known to us only by revelation; and, of course all that is not designated by divine authority as typical, can never be made so, by any authority less than that which guided the writers of the Scriptures. Ernesti, &c. § 25.

Książki