body there may have been, having been accomplished in that of Jesus Christ, and the resurrection of his saints being but allegorical, i. e. their regeneration and rising, as it were, from the death of trespasses and sins to newness of life. This would be spiritual interpretation in opposition to literal. Origen affords abundant specimens of this sort of spiritual interpretation. Although the best qualified, among the Greek fathers, by a knowledge of the Hebrew language, for the grammatical interpretation of the Old Testament, and although he actually did much, by his HEXAPLA, to facilitate the labors of grammatical interpreters, nevertheless he allowed himself to mingle his philosophical, metaphysical, and theological notions about the things asserted, in determining the meaning of many passages, and deviated most widely from the principles of grammatical interpretation. Thus he has furnished an example, which has been copied in every age, and contributed im. mensely, by his allegorical meaning, to introduce endless confusion into the interpretation of the Scriptures. Epiphanius says, and very truly, that, by his erroneous doctrinal views concerning faith, and his mal-interpretation of many passages of the Scriptures, he did a serious injury to the world at large.* Even Ernesti, his apologist, is forced to confess "that Origen pressed the matter too far through a fondness for allegory, since in some passages he acknowledges no other than the allegorical sense. But adds, he seems to have come to this pitch of folly when he was now advanced in years, and after he had bestowed grammatical labor upon the sacred writings." + De Pond. et Mens., c. 7. The radical difference, between the literal and spiritual interpretation, is nowhere more striking, or important, than on the great themes of prophecy, designed to be brought into view in these disquisitions, viz. the coming and kingdom of Jesus Christ. That the Sacred Scriptures speak of a second coming of the blessed Redeemer, and of a kingdom to be established at his coming, will not be denied. But how is that coming to be understood? and what is meant by his kingdom? The grammatical interpretation says, literally and truly, i. e. the second coming of Christ will take place, actually and visibly, as truly a matter of observation as was his first coming, long since become a matter of history, and the kingdom of Christ, a dominion which he will then establish in this world, as truly a matter of sensible observation, as was the Theocracy once established in Israel. Now, if it should be thought, by any metaphysical or theological commentator, that these things are incredible, and impossible to be believed and understood, or that they are, in themselves, absurd, foolish and visionary, of course, instead of taking the literal, grammatical interpretation as true, they will look for another and more recondite, meaning, some mystic or allegorical interpretation, as the only means of reconciling the language of the Bible with their previous notions. That is, they will make the things, according to their own metaphysical or theological notion of them, explain the words, and not suffer the words to guide them in their notion of the things. It must be obvious to every one, at first sight, how greatly the two systems differ, and how widely different, too, must be the results obtained from them. The former or literal interpretation was adopted by Mede, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishops Newton and Horseley, and other distinguished writers on prophecy. The latter, or the spiritual interpretation, was avowed by Bishop Hurd, and finds most favor with the great body of the ministry at the present day, in these United States. "It may be proper," says Bishop Hurd in his Lectures on Prophecy, "to observe that the second advent of the Messiah is not, like the first, confined to one single and precise period, but is gradual and successive. This distinction is founded in the reason of the thing. He could only come in person at one limited time. He comes in his power and providence through all ages of the church. His first coming was then over when he expired on the cross. His second commenced with his resurrection, and will continue to the end of the world. So that this last coming of Jesus is to be understood of his Spirit and kingdom; which is not one act of sovereignty exerted at once, but a state or constitution of government, subsisting through a long tract of time, unfolding itself by just degrees, and coming, as oft as the conductor of it thinks fit to interpose, by any signal acts of his administration."* We give this as the fairest and best specimen of their views, who reject the literal, and prefer the spiritual interpretation. Every one can see that it is, in the strictest sense, philosophical, founded, as the Bishop says, IN THE REASON OF THINGS,-of which, of course, he is the judge, and liable to err. The first advent was confined to a precise time, the second, he says, could not be,—but why not, he has not even hinted. Yet, on this metaphysical basis,-the impossibility, in his view, of its being a literal coming, has he reared a vast spiritual system, the mediatorial pro * Hurd's Lect. on Proph., p. 102. vidence of Jesus Christ, and his dispensation of the Spirit, in the progress of its development, as being the thing we are to understand by the words of prophecy, viz. the coming and kingdom of Christ. This is making preconceived notions of things, the interpreters of the words, directly in violation of Ernesti's principle, instead of gathering, from the words, the idea of what the coming and kingdom of Christ are to be. It is unquestionably allegorizing, and of the same general nature with the interpretations of Neological doctors, divines who, assuming that there could have been no such things as miracles, and going with this notion to the Scriptures, allow themselves any and every licence of imagination to explain the language of the evangelists, describing the preternatural works of Christ, as though they meant to assert no miracle, but related mere natural phenomena. Very different were the views of the learned Dr. Dodwell, who observes: "We should neither, with some, interpret it into allegory, nor depart from the literal sense of Scripture, without an absolute necessity for so doing," which, it may be remarked, is doing,”—which, not the case here. "Neither should we with others," he adds, "indulge an extravagant fancy, nor explain too curiously the manner and circumstances of this future state" -as was done by many, in their sensual descriptions of Christ's kingdom. "It is safest and best, faithfully to adhere to the words of Scripture, or to fair deductions from Scripture, and to rest contented with a general account, till time shall accomplish and eclaircise all the particulars." Still more pointed is the learned Vitringa, who, in a tract on the Interpreta. tion of Prophecy, first published in Latin in 1716, lays it down as a fundamental canon: "We must never depart from the literal meaning of the subject mentioned in its own appropriate name, if all or its principal attributes square with the subject of the prophecy-an unerring canon, he adds, and of great use."* These quotations may suffice for the general presentation of the two systems of interpretation. We adopt the LITERAL in preference to the ALLEGORICAL, for reasons we proceed to state. I. IT IS THE MOST NATURAL, CONSISTENT, AND SATISFACTORY MODE OF INTERPRETATION, AND THEREFORE COMMENDS ITSELF TO THE COMMON SENSE OF MANKIND. By the common sense of mankind, a thing often spoken of, frequently misunderstood, and by many abused, we mean nothing more nor less than the judgment of men, under the guidance of their unsophisticated, unperverted reason, in matters which legitimately fall within its sphere, and for judging of which it is competent. If asked to define it, we would say, that common sense is the common judgment of human reason, in matters about which it is competent to judge. We claim not the power for the human mind to excogitate the truths of revelation. Nor is it admissible to form our à priori judgment, on the nature of facts and phenomena, and in the light of our philosophical theories, and explanations of their quo modo, determine the meaning of the language of Scripture. We judge of God's meaning, and of the facts he states, as we do in other matters. The great mass of readers instinctively adopt this very system. They naturally first inquire into the meaning of words, and that for the purpose of ascertaining what the writer asserts or teaches. In all matters of science also, the same course is pursued. All technical expressions, or terms of art, are first • Typus Doctrinæ Propheticæ, Canon III. |