able in them now, as it would have been in the Psalmist to have expected an elevation to the throne without a conflict with his rivals, or a conquest of the hostile nations around him, without the toils and perils of war. There is no other method, perhaps, in which God could teach us in so impressive a manner the acceptableness to him of prayer for deliverance from troubles and sorrows, and his readiness to interpose and bestow the blessings that are needed by his people; as by leading his servants who enjoyed the special guidance of his Spirit, to apply to him for protection from the dangers to which they were exposed, and relief from the calamities with which they were overwhelmed, and granting them deliverances in answer to their prayers. It was not simply the natural impulse of Abraham, of Jacob, of Moses, of David, and of others to look to him for guidance, support, and deliverance in their trials; but they were prompted to it by the Holy Spirit. The prayers of Moses and David are to be regarded as inspired, and are recorded as exemplifications at once of the disposition which the Spirit excites in the sanctified, and of the acceptableness to God of faith in such circumstances, in his power and graciousness, and of supplication for his aid. What a beautiful method of sanctioning and encouraging trust and prayer in the most perilous conditions! What an effective means of showing that his infinite graciousness inclines him to desire and hear their cries for salvation, as truly and naturally as their sufferings and fears prompt them to apply to him for relief! What is Professor Stuart's theory respecting God's interposition celebrated in the Psalm? What is the view entertained by Rosenmüller, Hengstenberg, and others? What reason for his view does Rosenmüller give! What is a proper answer to it? Is there not as much reason to believe this interposition was real, as that other visible manifestations of God that are narrated by the prophets were? What is a proper answer to Hengstenberg's view? Is there any more reason to regard this interposition as merely conceptional, than there is to ascribe that character to all the other similar manifestations that are recorded in the sacred volume? Is the question one of great moment? What are the figures in v. 1? What is indicated by the expression, servant of Jehovah! What is the first figure, v. 2 By what figure are rock and fortress, v. 2, used? What other figures are there in the verse? What is the word rendered rock used to denote? Explain the sense in which the several figures are employed. What are the figures in v. 5 Show how they are used. What were the dangers to which the Psalmist was exposed! What historic passage indicates it? By what figure is temple used, v. 6 How is it proved that shake and quake, v. 7, are used literally? What event do they signify? What is the figure, v. 8, 9? What figure is used v. 10? What are the words used by it? What is the figure v. 11, 12 What is the figure in v. 13? By what figure is arrows used v. 14? Is there any figure v. 16? How is it proved that there is not? What are the facts, then, which the verse narrates? What figure is used v. 17-19 What view of this narrative do those expositors entertain who regard it as figurative? What is the first proof that they are wrong? What is the next proof of their error? What is the third proof of it! How many metaphors are there v. 10-14 Who is the agent in them? How does it appear that the acts related in those verses cannot have been acts of any other being than God; nor any other acts exerted by him than those the language directly imports? What is the figure, v. 20? What is the analogy on which it is used? What are the figures, v. 21, 22, and how are they used? What is the figure, v. 23, 24? What is the figure, v. 27 By what figure is way used, v. 30 What other figures are there, v. 30? What is the figure, v. 31? What is the first figure, v. 32? What is the second figure, v. 32? What is the first figure, v. 33? What does the comparison illustrate? By what figure is placing on heights, v. 33, used? What is the figure, v. 34? What figures are there in v. 35, and how many? What figure is there, v. 36? What is it that is celebrated, v. 31-36? What figure occurs, v. 37-39? What is celebrated in those verses? What is the figure, v. 40, 41? How is it used? What are the first two figures, v. 42? What is the next? What is celebrated in the verses that follow? What is the figure, v. 43 Which is the word used by it? What word is used by a figure, v. 44, 45? Why is it used by a metaphor? What word is used by the first figure, v. 46? Why is it used? What other figure is there in the verse? What is the figure, v. 47, 48? Is it clear, then, from the law of figures, that the interposition celebrated in the Psalm was really such as the language describes? Is the omission of any notice of the event in 1 Samuel xix. any proof that no such theophany took place? Is the extraordinariness of the event any proof that it did not really occur? What is the first thing which the events celebrated in the Psalm exemplify? What is the second? CHAPTER XVI. THE RESULTS OF THE LAWS OF FIGURES IN THE ANOTHER more frequent and mischievous error, is the spiritualization of the Scriptures, and especially the prophetic portions of them, by the assumption that the persons, objects, acts, and events of which they treat are used representatively of others of a different class, and without any regard to analogy; and thence that the persons, acts, and events which they foreshow are not those mentioned in them, but another set belonging to a different sphere. Thus it is held, that in the prophecies of the Old Testament, Israelites stand for Gentiles, Jerusalem and Zion for the church, and the acts and events that are predicted of the Israelites for acts and events of a different kind, of which Gentiles are to be the subjects. For this extraordinary construction not the slightest reason can be given, except a wish to get rid of teachings which, though specific and indubitable if construed by the established laws of language, are at variance with certain favorite theories respecting God's purposes, or the measures it becomes him to pursue in the government of the world. It is veiled, indeed, under the pretext or fancy, that the passages which are thus interpreted are figurative; but no figure is identified that gives them the meaning which the construction ascribes to them; and no such figure exists. The allegory, even, were they held to be allegorical, would not invest them with such a representative sense. But they are not allegorical; 1st, because the allegory is always in its descriptive part in the past tense, but these predictions are altogether in the future; and, 2d, because there is no such resemblance, as the allegory requires, between the Israelites, Jerusalem, Zion, the return of the Israelites, the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple, which are held by the spiritualists to be representatives, and the Gentile church, and the conversion of the Gentiles universally, which they are said to represent. In the first place, as the land of Israel, Jerusalem, and Zion are in those prophecies treated according to their nature, as places, and the Israelites are exhibited as to return to and inhabit them; if they are taken as representatives of the Christian church, then, on the principles of |