tions of the apostles to principles derived from Christ; and particularly let the whole life of St. Paul be subjected to the most severe scrutiny. We shall see nothing but this— "the love of Christ constrained him." The student will also observe that all the counteracting influences that opposed the career of the gospel originated in the principles of hell and the prince of darkness, as we see by Paul's declaration, Eph. vi. 12. After this study it will be proper to proceed to investigate the theology of the epistles, and it will be found to result from the facts of the gospel history and the nature of Christ's mediatorial work. Here reference may be had to the preface to these volumes. The benefit to be derived from this branch of study will be such as to lead you into a truly evangelical system of preaching: instruction will here be derived from a purer source than any of human invention, though human compositions, particularly the biography of good men, may afterwards be consulted with a similar design of tracing the principles developed in their conduct.

I proceed now to offer a few remarks as to principles of interpretation,* particularly in relation to the figurative language of the New Testament (which will also apply to that of the Old). Mr. Robinson says, "The doctrine of principles is extremely important to a Christian minister, and particularly in studying, first, the sense of Scripture as laying a foundation for doctrines; and, secondly, in studying the letter of Scripture, that is, the nature and principles of construing or expounding divine truth." But such principles of interpretation as our great biblical doctors recommend to students I shall not in this place either copy, imitate, or recommend, whatever I may do under any other Topic.+ I am desirous of " leading you in a safe way wherein yon will not stumble," and I hope in an easy way also. In

*See R. Watson's Theological Institutes, vol. i., part i., chap. 11, very excellent; and Owen on Heb. v. 4, p. 333, 334, &c.

+ The whole of what follows on principles of interpretation must be considered in connexion with Lectures I. and IV., vol. i.

figurative language our Lord was particularly copious. Such language nature loves. However, it was not to indulge us that our Lord employed it, but because there was a necessity for it as an inlet to such ideas as could not be received so well in any other way; and here I shall quote a passage from Dr. John Clarke in Boyle's Lectures.

The principles of all religion and goodness being laid in the mind and heart, the secret dispositions and genuine acts of which are invisible, and known only to a man's self (1 Cor. ii. 11), therefore the powers and operations of the mind can only be expressed in figurative terms and external symbols; the motives or principles and inducements to the practice of which being spiritual, such as affect men in a way of moral influence, and not of natural efficiency, the principal parts of which are drawn from a consideration of a future state, consequently these likewise must be represented by allegories and similitudes taken from things most known and familiar here below. And thus we find in Scripture the state of religion illustrated by all the most beautiful images we can conceive, in which natural unity, order, and harmony consist, as regulated by the strictest and most exact rules of discipline, taken from those observed in the best ordered temporal governments. Now, in the interpretation of places in which any of these images are contained, the principal regard is to be had to the figurative or spiritual, and not the literal, sense of the words. From not attending to which have arisen absurd doctrines and inferences, which weak men have endeavoured to establish as Scripture truths; whereas, in the other method of explication, the things are plain and easy to every one's capacity, make the deepest and most lasting impression upon their minds, and have the greatest influence upon their practice. Of this nature are all the rites and ceremonies prescribed to the Jews with relation to the external forms of religious worship; every one of which was intended to show the

obligation or recommend the practice of some moral duty [he should have added, or to teach some important gospel doctrine], and was esteemed of no further use than as it produced that effect (Isa. i. 1. &c.). And the same rule may be applied to the rewards and punishments peculiar to the Christian dispensation which regard a future state. The rewards are set forth by those things in which the generality of men take their greatest delight, and place their highest satisfaction in this life; and the punishments are such as are inflicted by human laws upon the worst of malefactors; but they can neither of them be understood in the strictly literal sense, but only by way of analogy, as corresponding in the general nature of the thing, though very different in kind.-Dr. J. Clarke.

But independent of the able argument à priori here cited in favour of the mediate, mystical, or spiritual interpretation of the Scriptures, unless such interpretation be admitted, we cannot avoid one of two great difficulties; for either we must assert that the multitude of applications made by Christ and his apostles are fanciful and unauthorised, and wholly inadequate to prove the points for which they are quoted, or, on the other hand, we must believe that the obvious and natural sense of such passages was never intended, and that it was mere delusion. The Christian will not assent to the former of these positions; the philosopher and the critic will not readily assent to the latter.-T. H. Horne.

While man is in the body, he must receive his instructions through the bodily senses. He cannot of himself form an idea of any thing spiritual, but as it is compared to, and illustrated by, some material object. And this method of instruction God has followed in the Scriptures, both in the language and in the composition. The language is

*The subject of figurative language will be resumed in future Lectures; it was introduced into this Lecture chiefly to show that it is a principle of just interpretation

entirely suited to man in his present state, every Hebrew word signifying, first, some material object, and thereby conveying the idea of some corresponding spiritual object. And the Scripture composition abounds with images and illustrations of divine things taken from nature. The evangelical prophet, Isaiah, is a remarkable instance of this kind of writing. He represents the various parts of the kingdom of grace under their expressive and familiar pictures in nature. He sets spiritual things as it were before our eyes, under the image which God has established in his created works, in order to bring them down to our understanding. And every illustration of this kind, being God's own application of things natural, must be considered as infallible truth. The spiritual application is as certain as the outward fact from which it is taken. God would not use the book of nature to illustrate the book of grace unless the illustration was just and instructive; for it is not consistent with his perfections to propose to his creatures what would deceive, or to reveal what would not tend to edify them.—Romaine.

Those Scriptures to which a spiritual meaning is to be attached, according to the idea alluded to, are very numerous. They are found in allegories, prophecies, ceremonies, institutions, tropes, idioms, figures of speech, resemblances, parables, allusions to secular affairs; and these spread themselves all over Scripture: when therefore the preacher has to treat of these, he must do it with a careful hand; and indeed he has great need of divine teaching, as noticed in regard to making observations. Here a wise discretion is to be exercised; it requires a truly spiritual and evangelical mind, for "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God," 1 Cor. ii. 14.

Perhaps it may not be improper to observe, in this place, that there are three kinds of writing in sacred Scripture,

1. Such as may be understood in the plain literal sense,

as the account of the creation,* plain history, plain commands, and interdictions; every thing that relates to such facts and circumstances as the human mind, independent of supernatural aid, is capable of comprehending. Here there is no occasion for unusual language, and none such is used. Now and then a figurative form of expression is employed, as in the sixth chapter of Genesis, "All flesh had corrupted its way;'' still this is uncommon: it is rare, and breaks not the general rule. In general cases, as to this class of Scripture, the plain sense is to be regarded as the true meaning; and we must always remember that we are to take a sense from the Scripture, and not bring a sense to it; and this true sense is to be used in dividing upon the passage, or in quoting it by way of proof or illus

tration.

2. There are a great number of passages that seem not to terminate in the occasion and in the persons to whom they relate, but which have a double sense, as the births of Ishmael and Isaac, Gal. iv. and 1 Cor. x. Almost every thing that related to Israel in Egypt, as well as their sojourning in the wilderness and their settlement in Canaan, is of this sort.

There is, perhaps, no book of the Old Testament more

* "Some have dreamt of I know not what figures and allegories in that part of the Mosaic history which describes the creation; that, though days are mentioned, yet it is a figure to denote an indefinite period, as the time mentioned was too short for physical causes to operate to their ends, and therefore a day must mean a term of undefined duration. But in what manner the creation was conducted is a question about a fact, and like all questions about facts must be determined not by theory but by testimony, and, if no testimony were extant, the fact must remain uncertain. But the testimony of the sacred historian is peremptory and explicit. No expressions could be found in any language to describe a gradual progress of the work for six successive days, and the completion on the sixth, in the literal and common sense of the word "day," more definite and more unequivocal than those employed by Moses: and they who seek or admit figurative expositions of such expressions as these seem not to be sufficiently aware that it is one thing to write a history, and quite another to compose riddles," &c.-Bishop Horsley, vol. ii., p. 225, &c.