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.

་ ན་

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 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.

carefully defined, or their meaning previously settled, before a man deems himself at all competent to understand the subject of which it treats. When addressed

by another, whether in the set harangue, the popular oration, or familiar converse, we all most naturally apprehend his meaning, according to the common, prevailing, grammatical import of his terms.

We never dream of applying other rules of interpretation, until we are distinctly and formally apprised, that the author's or speaker's words conceal a recondite meaning, and his terms are used in a sense different from their common and obvious import. When this is the case, and a man writes or speaks to us, making use of words in some peculiar, mystic, concealed, or allegorical sense, we feel disappointed, and somewhat irritated, unless he is very careful to apprise us distinctly of the fact, and to give us a key by which to unlock his meaning. Nor will this always satisfy. The question will come up,-"Why should he thus speak? What is the use of perverting the import of terms, and wishing to be understood in a sense quite different from the common and obvious import of his language ?" Persons engaged in plots of treason, of fraud or treachery, or in danger of their lives if detected, may perhaps feel satisfied, and understand the reason and necessity of such secret correspondence. But there must always be some special design, or obviously important use, to be subserved by such a style of language, to justify it, or even to suggest it; and then the import of terms must be well settled between the parties.

Now the whole volume of Revelation is delivered to us in styles of speech with which men in general are familiar, and is therefore to be interpreted in the very same way by which we discover the meaning of other