tion of Scripture, who would not receive them in their avowed and literal acceptation of a miraculous substitute to meet an emergency; and deny the exposition which has been given them by St. Paul. Their minds would revolt against the concealment of a mystic meaning in things which were so simple and so plain; and denounce the enlargement of the terms, a perversion of their sense. This certainly would be the most ordinary conclusion to which a man would come who judged of Scripture only by the rules of his own reason, But what is now the case? The Apostle has not only shown the fallacy of this mode of reasoning; but has drawn forth the under current of divine counsel from a circumstance which at first sight would seem very unlikely to possess it; and that too in a manner which demonstrates most satisfactorily, that the Jews, though ignorant of its exact application, were perfectly conscious of its real existence.

In writing also to the Galatians he has made use of an illustration of the same nature, and possessing to a full extent the same form of objection in the mind of the mere rationalist as in the passage just adduced. He has brought it forward equally without preface, as writing to men, who coincided in his views of exposition. "Tell me," he exclaims to the Jews, " ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free-woman. But he who was of the bond-woman was born after the flesh; but he of the free-woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory;for these are the two Covenants; the one from the

Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise."*

Can we read this passage;

the opening appeal

to the Jews; the bold, distinct and authoritative

adaptation of the history to the higher interests of the Jewish and Christian Law; the abruptness of the parallel ;and believe that St. Paul disclosed a perfectly new and unheard-of principle to the converts of Galatia? Can we believe that this was a use of Scripture to which they had been wholly unaccustomed? And above all, that it was an ingenious argument raised and thought of at the moment, and not inherent by God's will, in the very nature of the events? - a simile which his mind struck out from the history of the Patriarchs, and happily adjusted to the two great Covenants of religion?

This, if it had stood alone in the writings of the Apostle, would scarcely have been credible; wholly unsupported, it could not have been assumed with perfect certainty; for the singularity of the allusion would have compelled the mind to enquire whether it contained not a principle which was to be worked out, instead of a parallel which was to be tacitly assented to; - but connected as it is with so many passages of the same nature, we read it as a sure exposition of the mode in which God caused the Scripture to be written; and the means by

* Gal. iv. 21.

which he has designed that we should thoroughly comprehend it. Under this idea-taking the former illustration of the manna and the rock as the groundwork it is no novel principle which is here inculcated, but simply an amplification. That instance was an enlargement of the system of type and sacrifice which pointed to Christ's Redemption; and showed, that He was the secret principle of mysteries and revelations in things, which, to the outward eye, seemed framed only for man's comforts or necessities; - but this gives a farther range and a deeper insight into the operations of Providence, and evidences, that not only the deed, but the doer was also under the command of God, and an instrument, in his own person, of his designs in the Atonement. Nothing in truth can be more express than the words of St. Paul; - nothing less liable to misconstruction; there is not the slightest intimation whatever, that the parallel he has drawn is a mere illustration. He states, that Abraham had two sons; one of bondage, as the Law; -the other of freedom, as Redemption; — which things are an allegory; for these are the two Covenants:- not like not adapted to not specimens of-but they are actually figurative fore-runners of the two Covenants; exhibiting in their several births, lives, actions and ends the destinies of the two great dispensations which, under the hand of God were to embrace the true religion of the world; and so close and intimate were they in their relations as fore-runners of the truth, that the language was justified in its full extent which asserted of these men, that in their

secret, allegorical sense, they were the two Co

venants.

There is still another important proof, drawn from the writings of St. Paul, omitting many of less prominency, which we are unwilling to pass over. He is addressing the Jews,-the men of his own nation, and proving from many passages of their own Law, that Christ is the only Being who has appeared upon earth, in whom the types and prophecies can have a full and perfect completion. In the course of his argument quoting from the 110th Psalm, he has termed Jesus "an High Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." This prince however has apparently only an incidental mention in the early records of Genesis, during the life of Abraham. His history, such as it is, is comprised in a few sentences, and brought forward in a single action in regard to that Patriarch. Its secret character,— probably from this circumstance,-seems to have been overlooked by the Jews; for the Apostle, contrary to his usual custom, after drawing their attention three times to it, proceeds to explain at large the peculiarity of its application to Jesus. He seems to have thought that the extreme subtlety of the threads which joined the Redeemer with his type might, in spite of his allusion, yet escape their observation ;but it gives a surprizing force to the idea, that there is no essential part nor marked character of Scripture, but which under the guidance of the Almighty, points in a secret sense to the grand object of all divine Revelation. "*For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham

*Heb. vii. 1.

U

returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation 'king of Righteousness,' and after that also King of Salem, which is 'King of Peace;" without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."

In this strain of allegory he has written the whole chapter; drawing the parallel still closer, as he proceeds with his argument, and causing it to branch out into points of assimilation the most subtle and unexpected.

But we have not only the common usage of the Jews on the one hand to justify our argument; and the written testimony of St. Paul on the other; but Christ has added the indisputable weight of His authority to enforce credence to it. It was not merely the bias of his own mind, which led St. Paul to adopt that figurative method of eliciting the truth; but he drew it under the sanction, and from the practice of Christ Himself. Examples of this fact abound in the Evangelists. We extract three;

which, as possessing a certain degree of conformity with those drawn from the Apostle, give just that accordance in the minds of both which the enquiry demands.

During the wanderings of Israel in the wilderness, they had provoked the Lord to anger by murmurs on the length and weariness of the way. It was not the clamor of a faction. The whole people were in a common cause, and incurred a common guilt. The wrath of God grew hot upon them. He sent