24 bare and direct an explication. But it is different, when the same image puts on the form of the other sort of allegory, or parable, as in Isaiah 2+. Here is no room for literal, or even ambiguous expressions; every word is figurative; the whole mass of colouring is taken from the same pallet. Thus what, in the former quotation, is expressed in undisguised language, namely, "the casting out "of the nations, the preparation of the "place, and its destruction from the rebuke "of the Lord," is by Isaiah expressed wholly in a figurative manner:-" The Lord ga"thered out the stones from his vineyard, " and cleared it: but when it deceived him, "he threw down its hedge, and made it "waste, and commanded the clouds that they should rain no rain upon it." Expressions, which in the one case possess a peculiar grace, would be absurd and incongruous in the other. For the continued metaphor and the parable have a very different aim. The sole intention of the former is to embellish a subject, to represent it more magnificently, or at the most to illustrate it; that, by describing it in more ele24 Chap. v. 1-7. may strike the mind more vated language, it forcibly but the intent of the latter is to withdraw the truth for a moment from our sight, in order to conceal whatever it may contain ungraceful or disgusting, and to enable it secretly to insinuate itself, and obtain an ascendancy as it were by stealth. There is, however, a species of parable, the intent of which is only to illustrate the subject: such is that remarkable one of Ezekiel 25, which I just now commended, of the cedar of Lebanon: than which, if we consider the imagery itself, none was ever more apt or more beautiful; if the description and colouring, none was ever more elegant or splendid; in which, however, the poet has occasionally allowed himself to blend the figurative with the literal description 2: whether he has done this because the peculiar nature of this kind of parable required it, or whether his own fervid imagination alone, which disdained the stricter rules of composition, was his guide, I can scarcely presume to determine, 25 Chap. xxxi. 26 See v. 11, 14-17, LECTURE XI. OF THE MYSTICAL ALLEGORY. The definition of the Mystical Allegory-Founded upon the allegorical or typical nature of the Jewish religion -The distinction between this and the two former species of allegory; in the nature of the materials: it being allowable in the former to make use of imagery from different objects; in this, only such as is derived from things sacred, or their opposites; in the former, the exterior image has no foundation in truth; in the latter, both images are equally true-The difference in the form or manner of treating them-The most beau tiful form is when the corresponding images run parallel through the whole poem, and mutually illustrate each other-Examples of this in the iid and lxxiid Psalms The parabolic style admirably adapted to this species of allegory; the nature of which renders it the language most proper for prophecy-Extremely dark in itself, but it is gradually cleared up by the series of events foretold, and more complete revelation; time also, which in the general obscures, contributes to its full explanation. THE third species of Allegory, which also prevails much in the prophetic poetry, is when a double meaning is couched under the same words; or when the same prediction, according as it is differently interpreted, relates to different events, distant in time, 3 These time, and distinct in their nature. different relations are termed the Literal and the Mystical senses; and these constitute one of the most difficult and important topics of Theology. The subject is, however, connected also with the sacred poetry, and is therefore deserving of a place in these Lectures. In the sacred rites of the Hebrews, things, places, times, offices, and such-like, sustain as it were a double character, the one proper or literal, the other allegorical; and in their writings these subjects are sometimes treated of in such a manner, as to relate either to the one sense or the other singly, or to both united. For instance, a composition may treat of David, of Solomon, of Jerusalem, so as to be understood to relate simply either to the city itself and its monarchs, or else to those objects, which, in the sacred allegory of the Jewish religion, are denoted by that city and by those monarchs: or the mind of the author may embrace both objects at once, so that the very words which express the one in the plain, proper, historical, and commonlyreceived sense, may typify the other in the sacred, interior, and prophetic sense. From From these principles of the Jewish religion, this kind of allegory, which I am inclined to call Mystical, seems more especially to derive its origin; and from these we must endeavour at an explanation of it. But its nature and peculiar properties will probably be more easily demonstrable, if we previously define in what respects it is different from the two former species of allegory. The first remarkable difference is, that in allegories of the kind already noticed, the writer is at liberty to make use of whatever imagery is most agreeable to his fancy or inclination: there is nothing in universal nature, nothing which the mind perceives, either by sense or reflexion, which may not be adapted in the form of a continued metaphor, or even of a parable, to the illustration of some other subject. This latter kind of allegory, on the contrary, can only be supplied with proper materials from the sacred rites of the Hebrews themselves; nor can it be introduced, except in relation to such things as are directly connected with the Jewish religion, or their immediate opposites. For, to Israel, Sion, Jerusalem, in the allegorical as well as the literal sense, are |