of the world, one who, by virtue of a bequest or grant, may rightly claim and occupy it as his own. Now, no occupancy which either Abraham or the Jews have as yet had of the land of Canaan, comes any way near to the grammatical import of that expression. Nor does the spiritual extension and enlargement of the Christian church, as some suppose; for it is just as obvious, according to the grammatical import of the prophecy of the Abrahamic covenant, that the occupancy of the land of Canaan, or the promised land, by Abraham and his seed, was to be in some way connected with his being "a blessing to all the nations and families of the earth," a thing not true to this hour.

The covenant, too, which guarantees the possession of the land of Canaan, with the fulfilment of the promise that he should be heir of the world, looks forward to something, then only to be accomplished when both Abraham and all his seed should together enter upon it as "an everlasting possession." Neither the temporary possession, therefore, of the land of Palestine, by the natural descendants of Abraham, nor the exten

sortibus dandis, v. Jos. 11. 23; 14.2. The above is the grammatical interpretation or criticism of Rosenmüller. The following is his exposition, as vague and indefinite, and unlike the text, and as wide from the promise, as it well can be, yet a fair specimen of the allegorical interpretation. "Videtur autem h. 1. possessione mundi intelligi omnis generis felicitas Abrahami posteris promissa." Abraham should possess the world, be its lord or inheritor," the heir of the world," says Paul. Abraham himself is the person spoken of; but Rosenmüller, and the whole class of interpreters who adopt his principles, tell us it means all sort of happiness promised to Abraham's posterity!! What part, interest, or concern had Abraham personally, in the Jews' temporary possession of Canaan? He did not care for it himself, and would he be more captivated by his children's temporary occupancy of it?

sion of the church of God among the Gentile nations, during the whole period of the rejection of the Jews, was, or could be, the thing intended by the prophecy, according to its literal or grammatical import. That teaches, that the blessed inheritance connected with, and intended by the land of Canaan for " an everlasting possession," is one, the enjoyment of which will belong, in some way or other, to Abraham, together with all who walk in the footsteps of his faith. "For," the apostle says, "the promise must be sure to all the seed, not to that only which is of the law, (viz. believers under the Mosaic dispensation, as he has explained himself to mean,) but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, (as it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things that be not as though they were."*

Here the apostle, who is explaining Abraham's faith of this promise, or, in other words, setting forth the things that Abraham expected, tells us expressly, that Abraham was regarded, and regarded himself, as the father or representative of a numerous seed BEFORE GOD, and that, too, as he who raiseth the dead, and calleth things that be not AS THOUGH THEY WERE. It was, in the sight of God, as raising the dead, and speaking of things far distant in futurity, as though they were present, that Abraham's faith looked for. ward to the events to be realized by the fulfilment of the promise. Some occupancy of the land of Canaan, therefore, which Abraham and all the saints should have together in the resurrection state, and when Abraham should be conspicuously and gloriously the * Romans, 4. 13.

6

heir or possessor of the world, was literally the thing promised of God, and expected by Abraham,-the heavenly city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God, for which he looked, and of which Paul speaks, the New Jerusalem, the holy city, which John in vision saw coming down from God out of heaven, as a bride adorned for her husband.

To make the promise refer to the spread and prevalence of the gospel, under the evangelical dispensation, and to say that Abraham becomes "heir of the world," by the diffusion and triumph of the gospel, is to allegorise and to accommodate the language of the Spirit, to contradict the grammatical import, and not grammatically to interpret. For, to dwell a moment longer here

Paul says explicitly, Abraham and all the fathers looked for a heavenly city, as one great and glorious thing held forth in "the covenant of promise." That heavenly city, allegorically interpreted, must mean either the invisible state, i. e. the state of happiness into which the saints now enter, when they die, and pass into the heavenly paradise, or it must mean the church of God, enlarged, extended, and universally established-what the Spiritualists call the kingdom of God, etc., especially towards the close of the gospel dispensation, i. e. during the millenial glory. That it means the paradisiacal heaven, or the heavenly state, on which all the Fathers entered after death, Paul expressly denies, for he says, "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims upon the earth; for they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they

came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is an heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He hath prepared for them a city.' At their death they did not enter into that heavenly city for which they hoped, neither did the prophets, who succeeded the patriarchal fathers, such as Moses, David, Samuel, Isaiah, and many others; for Paul says of them also, that "having in this life obtained a good report through faith, they received not the promise, God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect,"† i. e. be consummated in bliss.

The literal or grammatical meaning of this is, that the patriarchs and prophets were not to enter into the promised glory without, and consequently before, we Christians. But, lest it be said, that a change took place, after the death and ascension of Christ, in the heavenly state, and that Abraham and the prophets passed into the glory into which Christians now enter when they die-whatever may or may not be the truth of this, it is not, and cannot be, what the apostle understands by the thing promised. That, he uniformly speaks of as being the glory accruing to the saints, when Christ shall return to earth, raise their dead bodies, and establish His kingdom for ever and

ever.

Of that inheritance, Peter says explicitly, they have not yet obtained possession, whether patriarchs, prophets, apostles, or any now with Christ, for it is "reserved in heaven," and "ready to be revealed in the last time." The grace for which patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and Christians in all ages hope, is the

* Heb. 11. 13-16. † Heb. 11. 39-40. 1 Peter, 1. 4, 5.

grace that is to be brought unto us at the revelation of Jesus Christ, i. e. at his second coming. But if the heavenly city, the inheritance for which Abraham and all the fathers hoped, and for which Christians are yet hoping, be not the state immediately after death, and the allegorical interpretation fails here, much more must it, when it is alleged that it is the gospel state of the church on earth, especially in a millenium to be enjoyed before the return of Christ. In that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the dead saints have no part for which they now wait, the heavenly city is not to be entered until the resurrection, and the return of Christ to this world. It is explicitly said that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are to enter at that day into the kingdom, and "many from the East and from the West, from the North and from the South, are to come, not before, but at the day of Christ's appearing, and to sit down with them in the kingdom of heaven." The allegorical interpretation makes utter confusion of all this, but the grammatical interpretation sets it before us as clear and intelligible as it is transcendent in glory.