such probably as had fallen within the observation of the persons, to whom our Saviour addressed himself. When he had finished the narrative, or the immediate representation of the allegory, he then gave the explanation, or the ultimate representation of it. That is, he gave the allegorical interpretation of it. And that this allegorical interpretation was an interpretation, not of the words, but of the things signified by the words, is evident from the explanation itself. "The seed is "the Word of God. Those by the way-side are "they that hear: then cometh the devil, and taketh "away the Word out of their hearts, lest they "should believe and be saved. They on the rock "are they, which, when they hear, receive the "Word with joy and these have no root, which "for a while believe, and in time of temptation "fall away. And that, which fell among thorns, "are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, "and are choked with cares, and riches, and pleas"ures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. "But that on the good ground are they, which in ❝an honest and good heart having heard the Word, "keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience." Here then we have an evident explanation, not of the words employed in the narrative, but of the things signified by them. It was the seed itself, with which the Word of God was compared. As the seed was choked, which fell among thorns, so the Word of God is choked by the pleasures of the

world and, as that which fell on good ground produced an hundred-fold, so the Word of God produces in those, who are prepared to receive it. In short, an Allegory with its application constitutes a kind of Simile, in both parts of which the words themselves are construed, as on other occasions, either literally or figuratively, according to the respective use of them: and then we institute the comparison between the things signified in the former part with the things signified in the latter part.

Let us now take, as an example of Allegory from the Old Testament, that impressive and pathetic Allegory, addressed by Nathan to David. "There were two men in one city, the one rich, "and the other poor. The rich man had exceed"ing many flocks and herds. But the poor man “had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he "had bought and nourished up; and it grew to"gether with him and with his children; it did eat "of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and "lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daugh"ter. And there came a traveller unto the rich "man, and he spared to take of his own flock, "and of his own herd, to dress for the way-faring 46 man, that was come unto him; but took the poor "man's lamb, and dressed it for the man, that was

come to him." When Nathan had finished this narrative, which he had addressed to David, as an allegory, David, not immediately perceiving

the intended application, replied, "As the Lord "liveth, the man, that has done this thing, shall "surely die: and he shall restore the lamb four"fold, because he did this thing, and because he "had no pity." In application then of the narrative to the intended purpose, replied Nathan to David, "Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God "of Israel; I anointed thee king over Israel, and "I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul, and I "gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's "wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of "Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too "little, I would moreover have given unto thee "such and such things. Wherefore hast thou "despised the commandment of the Lord to do "evil in his sight? Thou hast killed Uriah the "Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife "to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword "of the children of Ammon."

In the preceding examples, the allegorical narratives were accompanied with their explanations; that is, both parts of the Simile were introduced. But allegorical narratives are more frequently left to explain themselves, especially when the resemblance between the immediate and the ultimate representation is sufficiently apparent, to make an explanation unnecessary. Of this kind we cannot have a more striking example, than one, which has been frequently quoted, namely, that beautiful allegory in the eightieth Psalm. "Thou hast

"brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out "the heathen, and planted it. Thou preparedst 66 room for it, and didst cause it to take deep "root, and it filled the land. The hills were "covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs "thereof were like the goodly cedars. She sent "out her boughs unto the sea, and her branches "unto the river. Why hast thou broken down "her hedges, so that they, which pass by the way, "do pluck her? The boar out of the wood doth "waste it, and the wild beast of the field doth "devour it. Return, we beseech thee, O God of ❝hosts, look down from heaven, and behold, and "visit this vine." In this Allegory was finely depictured the then-unhappy state of the Jews contrasted with their former prosperity: and its application was sufficiently obvious, without any formal explanation; for the vineyard of the Lord of hosts, was the house of Israel. It is indeed an essential requisite in every Allegory, which is left to explain itself, that the application be easy and obvious. The subject, designed to be suggested must be one that is familiar to the reader; and the several circumstances of the immediate representation, must have a manifest correspondence with those of the ultimate representation. The immediate representation must be consistent also in its several parts. Whatever object be selected for the comparison, that object must be kept constantly in view; and we must be careful

that nothing be affirmed of it, which does not properly belong to it. Otherwise the Allegory itself will displease by its incongruity, and lose its effect in the application.

After these examples from Scripture, let me be allowed to quote an instance of Allegory from a profane author, especially as it has been made a subject of examination by Quintillian. It is the well-known passage in Horace,

O Navis, referent in mare te novi

Fluctus? O quid agis? Fortiter occupa

Portum.

On this passage Quintillian observes, "Navim pro "republicâ, fluctuum tempestates pro bellis civili"bus, portum pro pace atque concordiâ dicit." But, though the passage may be explained by the sub. stitutions here made, it is not that the words, used by Horace, are synonymous with the words, employed by Quintillian for the explanation; but because the things signified by the former may be compared with the things signified by the latter. It is not that Navis can signify a republic, or that Fluctus can signify civil wars, or that Portus can signify peace. But a ship tossed by the waves may be compared with a nation agitated by civil wars, as a ship, lying safely in harbour, may be again compared with a nation enjoying the blessings of· peace. Here then we have another proof, that allegorical interpretation is an interpretation, not of words, but of things.