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

books. The prophetical parts of it possess the same character. The idea that prophecy is peculiar, and affects styles of speech different from all other writings, has led to much confusion and error in interpretation. It is the favorite notion of all enthusiasts and mystics, and especially of- Swedenborgians.

There may be, and are, occasionally, phrases and passages, the import of which is not immediately obvious-some that are ambiguous-and some, too, that must be understood by the rules of rhetoric, applicable to tropes and figures of speech. It is true, too, that there is also a style of speech, which may be justly called symbolical, and having its own appropriate meaning. But, in these respects, the language of the Bible, and of prophecy, is not peculiar; and the gene. ral principles of what is called grammatical interpretation, are abundantly sufficient to satisfy us as to their meaning. We never think of applying any other rules of interpretation, than those admitted to be correct, in reference to the ordinary forms of prosaic or poetic style and diction, or even where symbols are preferred for the purpose of instruction. "There is in fact," says Ernesti, with great truth, "but one and the same method of interpretation common to all books, whatever be their subject. And the same grammatical principles and precepts ought to be the common guide in the interpretation of all."*

It behoves the advocates of the allegorical or spiritual interpretation, therefore, to show that the Bible is peculiar, and different from all other books, having its own particular rules of interpretation, by which to detect the

* Bib. Rep. 3. 131. See also Manual of Sacred Interpretation, by Dr. M'Clelland, p. 10.

hidden meaning of its language. And it further behoves them to give us, from the Bible itself, the key to its meaning, those private definitions and hints. which will enable the reader to determine when the meaning is to be taken in a sense quite foreign from its natural and literal, or grammatical import. This has never yet been done. It is true we have been told that the literal meaning is the lowest and most unimportant—that there is a style of speech peculiar to God alone-that when He speaks He is not to be understood in the ordinary sense of the terms He uses, but in some recondite spiritual senseand that to understand which, a new faculty is necessary, or power to be imparted by the direct illumination or new creating agency of the Holy Ghost. And it is true, too, that some have even affected to be greatly shocked, and struck with horror, by the alleged impiety of those who have dared to say, that God has spoken to us in familiar language, and is to be understood, according to the dictates of common sense, upon principles of grammatical interpretation. But this feeling is the result of education sustained by a peculiar theology, fostered by a particular cast of preaching, and by no means natural and common. On the contrary, the spiritualising or allegorising of the Bible, is, to the great mass, as offensive as it is unintelligible; nor is it ever favorably received, till mistaken views of piety, of the very nature of inspiration, and of spiritual illumination, have led men to renounce their common sense.

Who does not see how disgusting and ridiculous the Bible must become, when interpreted by allegorising and spiritualising commentators, who, in every historical incident, prophecy, parable, or poem, are looking for a philosophical, or for a recondite spiritual

meaning? We see no difference, as far as the principles of interpretation are concerned, between the Unitarian who tells us that the stories of the paradisiacal state and fall of Adam, of the temptation of Christ, and other historical matters in the Bible, are mere fables or allegories, and the Neologist, who, assuming the language of the sacred writer to be often that of the superstitious vulgar, or of the extravagant poet, accounts for every miracle upon natural principles, and the ignorant Mystic who sees no use or value in the Bible, but as he can give a spiritual gloss to its historical and literal statements. Our common sense, in each case, is insulted. We feel disappointed; and the Bible is concluded to be a most uncertain and unsatisfactory book, just as truly, when, with the Unitarian we allegorize, the Neologist we philosophize, the Swedenborgian we spiritualize, as when with the Mystic we lose sight of plain history, and seek a recondite theological or spiritual meaning, as did that interpreter who made "the man going down from Jerusalem to Jericho (to be) Adam wandering in the wilderness of this world; the thieves who robbed and wounded him, evil spirits; the priest who passed by on the other side without relieving him, the Levitical law; the Levite, good works; the good Samaritan, Christ; the oil and the wine, grace, &c."*

Such allegorising, for theological uses, is altogether gratuitous and censurable; and such must the allegorising, or spiritual interpretation of prophecy be considered, till it is shown that the Spirit of God, in the mouth of the prophets, meant something very different from what their language imports, when that lan

* See Elementary Principles of Interpretation of J. A. Ernesti, by Moses Stuart. 3d ed. p. 79.