the sun may be applied to Christ, as the head by whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, (Ephes. iii. 15.) and the great "Sun of righteousness;" the moon to the Church, which is his bride; (Rev. xxi. 2.) and the stars to his apostles and prophets, or to the sons of the Church, who, like the patriarchs, are to be made princes in all the earth. (Psalm xlv. 16.) And thus they are further applied to the visible types of these things: the sun e. g. to the regal power, in a kingdom the moon to the visible Church, commonly identified and associated with the regal power; and the stars to the nobles, or men of influence, both in Church and State. In this sense the symbols are employed, whether the worship established in the kingdom to which they refer, be a corrupt superstition, or a pure religion. Thus in Isaiah xiii. 9-13, 17, they refer to the ruling powers, and nobles, and idols of Babylon; in Ezekiel xxxii. 7, 8, 11, to the same powers of Egypt; and in Isaiah xxxiv. 2, 5, to the powers of Idumea: and I doubt not, therefore, that Matt. xxiv. 29, and Luke xxi. 25, though occurring in a prophecy which is, in the main, literally set forth, refer nevertheless to the powers in Church and State, which shall be existing in those kingdoms that shall be brought within the vortex of the great whirlwind of tribulation mentioned therein. These expressions, therefore, are apparently to be viewed not. so much as symbols, strictly speaking, as expressions which have become tropical from their frequent and familiar use.

Various other phrases fall under this rule; as mountain, hill, sea, waves, waters, floods, trees, the virgin of Israel, the daughter of my people, &c.; without the understanding of which, in the first instance, we cannot arrive at a right apprehension of many passages in the prophets and many of the psalms, in which they are frequently used.

(2.) Sometimes we meet with sentences, immediately following the use of these figures, which sentences are evidently designed to explain the trope preceding. These are exceedingly valuable, not only as throwing light on that particular passage in which they occur; but as fixing the sense likewise of those expressions, upon an authority which must carry,conviction, and thus enable us to interpret other passages in which they are likewise used. A few instances of these exegetical sentences will serve to illustrate this point.

In Psalm xlvi. 1-3, we have: "God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore will we not fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea; though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof." Now this is explained in the sixth

verse: "The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: HE uttered his voice, the earth melted." From which it appears that mountains are kingdoms, and the heathen the ungodly or wicked portion of mankind who are the means of shaking and disturbing the kingdoms of the earth. Psalm lxv. 7. contains

another instance: "Which stilleth the noise of the seas-the noise of their waves-and [or rather even] the tumult of the people." This is doubly exegetical; for the seas in the first clause is explained in the second clause by waves; and in the third clause the "noise of the waves" is shown to be the tumult of the people." In Isaiah lxv. 5. we have: "the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee,—the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee;" the latter of which clauses is evidently the interpretation of the former. So Isaiah xliv. 3, "I will pour water upon him that is thirsty," is explained in the same verse by, "I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed." Isaiah xxxiv. 1. is also in the one part exegetical of the other, though neither part is obscure: "Come near ye nations to hear—and hearken ye people:" and again, "let the earth hear, and all that is therein, the world, and all things that come forth of it." And as the nations are here explained to be "the people, "* so in Psalm lxxxv. 8, "His people" is distinguished from "the people," and explained to be "the saints;" for He will speak peace unto his people, and [or even] to his saints."

Sometimes the explanation of particular tropes and figures is not to be met with in the same connexion, nor even in the same book. Thus in Luke xi. 20. the expression, "If I with the finger of God cast out devils," might excite inquiry in the mind of an English reader; but we find a precise explanation of it in Matt. xii. 28, where we have the parallel passage, "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God;" thus evincing how differently two Jews might express the same thing, and yet both be literally correct according to their own habits of thinking. And this further shows how justifiable it is, if we

The Septuagint has this rather different: "Come near, ye nations, (or Gentiles, vn) and hear, ye rulers: let the earth hear, and those in it,-the habitable earth, [omovμsvn] and the people which is in it."

י

The word and in our translation appears frequently to require the sense of even, which is giving to the Hebrew no greater latitude than is constantly allowed to the Greek na and the Latin et, the former of which is sometimes so translated in the New Testament, and seems to require it in other places. An instance occurs, in Numbers xxiv. 18, of an exegetical clause, in which the translators have not rendered by and, but by also,-"And Edom shall be a possession, Seir also shall be a possession." A reader, however, unacquainted with the fact, that Seir and Edom are the same, (Gen. xxxi. 3, xxxvi. 8,) would conclude from the word also, that two different countries were intended. It would certainly be nearer the sense if rendered, "And Edom shall be a possession, EVEN Šeir shall be a possession."

find the interpretation of a phrase in one part of scripture, to apply it to the like phrase in another part of scripture.

(3.) Another class of tropes or figurative words are those, the sense of which cannot be fixed by explanatory sentences, (as in the former instances,) but from their being connected with the Levitical ceremonial, which was typical; and therefore when words are used, which represent things connected typically with that ceremonial, it may be made a question whether they are to be understood literally or figuratively; and this may commonly be determined by the context and scope of the passage. For example, when our Lord warned his disciples to take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees," (Matt. xvi. 6,) he was supposed in the first instance to use the expression literally; (verses 7, 11,) which exposed them to rebuke for not understanding it in its mystical sense. This shows that the ultra-literal rule of qualifying only by the dictates of common sense is not sufficient; there must be a spiritual sense, to enable men to understand spiritual things, and to compare them with spiritual. (1 Cor. ii. 11—15.) It is apparently on this principle, viz. the typical meaning of the Levitical dispensation, that St. John applies those words as prophetical of what should happen to our Lord-"A bone of him shall not be broken." (John xix. 36.) No man I think, from the bare inductions of natural sense, would have fetched such a meaning out of Exodus xii. 46. Neither do I wonder that John ii. 19, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," should have been so little understood till after the resurrection of Jesus; for the circumstances under which it was spoken would naturally have led to the conclusion that it referred to the great temple at Jerusalem, and not to that temple or tabernacle which St. Paul mystically speaks of, 1 Cor. vi. 19. and 2 Cor. v. 1.* How likewise was Mary to conclude, by the dictates of common sense, of such a saying as this: "Yea a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also?" (ch. ii. 35.) Ordinary sense would rather lead to the conclusion, in this instance, that Mary was really and literally to suffer death by the sword. An acquaintance, however, with such scriptures as Psalm lvii. 4, lxiv. 3; Prov. xii. 18, and xxv. 18, (portions of scripture committed to memory by the pious Jews,) would suggest to Mary that a different sense might be intended; and knowing

I must refer the reader, for a full explanation of the phrases-Mount Zion, holy mountain-house of God, temple, &c. to ABDIEL'S ESSAYS, pages 42, 51 to 53, and 131. They are phrases quite necessary to be understood in their scriptural sense, in order to a right apprehension of the true meaning of scripture in many places.

this, the words concerning Christ, that he should be "for a sign that should be spoken against," would give occasion for her "to ponder in her heart" whether that which concerned herself was not, that the reproaches of them that reproached him should pierce and afflict her.

These things show that there are difficulties to be encountered, arising from the terms in which prophecies are expressed; (to say nothing of the more directly symbolical prophecies of Daniel and St. John;) and to pass these difficulties by, as of no moment, or to conclude that they have no existence, is not the right way to arrive at correct interpretation of prophecy. They are, however, I believe, all of them to be understood by a careful, and devout, and patient study and comparison of God's word.

(4.) It must further be observed, that whilst words in general are used in the scriptures in so literal a sense, that an argument is sometimes raised on this ground alone;* there are other words which are frequently, though not always, used in a restricted sense; and an argument therefore drawn from these, as if used invariably in an unrestricted sense, would not be just: though it is not unfrequently done, particularly of late, on the prophecies. For example, the word all, does not necessarily mean absolutely the whole of the subject of which it is predicated, but must be qualified by its usage in other instances, and its scope, therefore, and context in any particular case. Thus, in Mark i. 5, it is written-"And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him, &c." A very specious argument might be raised from the meaning of the word all, in the latter clause of the sentence, as to its comprehensive signification in the former part; and yet we know that all the land of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem, were not baptized of John, neither did all go out to him. And this, it is to be observed, cannot be clearly gathered from the context of Mark i. 5; but from a careful comparing of other scriptures, such as Luke vii. 29, 30. So in the prophets: Isaiah says, "By fire and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh; and the slain of the Lord shall be many. 99 This would seem to imply an utter destruction; but in verse 19 we read-"I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, Lud, Tubal, Javan," &c.

We have another very remarkable instance, in which even

* Mr. Haldane, in his treatise 'On the Verbal Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,' has given examples of this: for instance, when the apostle (Gal. iii. 16) draws an important conclusion from the word "seed,"-being used in the singular, and not in the plural number, (p. 138.)

the apostle argues for the most extensive signification of the word. Quoting Psalm viii.-"Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet," he reasons; "For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him; but now we see not yet all things put under him." (Heb. ii. 8.) And yet in 1 Cor. xv. 27, he makes this exception: "But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under him." This shews that an assertion evidently incongruous with and destructive of some grand truth contains within itself the exception to the rule.

The case is not altered by a change in the terms or expressions used. In Jeremiah xliv. 14, we read "that none of the remnant of Judah, which are gone into the land of Egypt to sojourn there, shall escape or remain, &c." Yet, at the end of the verse, it is added, "none shall return but such as shall escape." Verse 27 appears, in the first instance, still more sweeping: "Behold I will watch over them for evil, and not for good; and all the men of Judah that are in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by the famine, until there be an end of them." Nevertheless, it is afterwards intimated "Yet a small number that escape the sword shall return, &c." In John iii. 32-"And no man hath received his testimony," is afterwards apparently contradicted by"He that hath received his testimony, hath set to his seal that God is true;" which is, however, no real contradiction to those accustomed to Jewish idiom, any more than—“He came to his own, and his own received him not," qualified again by an intimation in the next verse, that some did receive him,"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God." (John i. 11, 12.) So in Acts ii. 5, it is stated, that there were dwelling at Jerusalem, devout men, out of every nation under heaven;" which, nevertheless, could not be the case if the phrase under heaven, is to be taken in its fullest extent; but it appears rather to have respect to the nations comprehending the Roman earth or world:* (See Luke ii. 1.) Luke iv. 5, seems to require a similar limitation.

The phrases for ever, and for ever and ever, are likewise susceptible of great limitation according to the circumstances and connexion in which they are mentioned. An able writer in "The Investigator of Prophecy," has traced this limitation to the following classes of circumstances:-First, when applied to the existence of man; in which case the phrase signifies

The word heaven is sometimes used as if synonymous with earth: e. g."If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God fetch thee," &c. Deut. xxx. 4.