from Numb. xxi. 8, 9. compared with John iii. 14., we learn that the lifting up of the brazen serpent betokened the lifting up of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world.1

Though the spiritual sense of a text is undoubtedly to be most highly esteemed, it by no means follows that we are to look for it in every passage of Scripture; but spiritual interpretations are not to be rejected, although they should not be clearly expressed. The spiritual meaning of a passage is there only to be sought, where it is evident, from certain criteria, that such meaning was designed by the Holy Spirit.

These criteria either are seated in the text itself, or they are to be found in some other passages.

I. Where the criteria are seated in the text, vestiges of a spiritual meaning are discernible, when things, which are affirmed concerning the person or thing immediately treated of, are so august and illustrious that they cannot in any way be applied to it, in the fullest sense of the words.

The word of God is the word of truth: there is nothing superfluous, nothing deficient in it. The writings of the prophets, especially those of Isaiah, abound with instances of this kind. Thus, in chaps. xiv., xl., xli., xlix., the return of the Jews from Babylon is announced in the most magnificent terms. The prophet describes their way as levelled before them, valleys filled up, mountains reduced to plains, trees and fragrant herbs as springing up to refresh them on their journey, and declares that they shall suffer neither hunger nor thirst during their journey. The Jews, thus restored, he represents as a holy people, chosen by Jehovah, cleansed from all iniquity, and taught by God himself, &c. &c. Now, when we compare this description with the accounts actually given of their return, we do not find any thing corresponding with the events predicted by Isaiah: neither do they represent the manners of the people as reformed, agreeably to the prophet's statement. On the contrary, their profligacy is frequently reproved by Ezra, Nehemiah, and Haggai in the most pointed terms. this description, therefore, of their deliverance from captivity, we must look beyond it to that infinitely-higher deliverance, which in the fulness of time was accomplished by Jesus Christ; "who, by himself once offered, hath thereby made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world," and thus "hath opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers."

In

We proceed to show in what cases it will be proper to have recourse to other passages of Scripture.

II. Where the spiritual meaning of a text is latent, the Holy Spirit sometimes clearly and expressly asserts that one thing or person was divinely constituted or appointed to be a figure or symbol of another thing or person; in which case the indisputable testimony of eternal truth removes and cuts off every ground of doubt.

For instance, if we compare Psal. cx. 4. with Heb. vii., we shall find that Melchisedek was a type of Messiah, the great high-priest and king. So Hagar and Sarah were types of the Jewish and Christian churches (Gal. iv. 22-31.). Jonah's deliverance from the whale was a type of Christ's resurrection (Matt. xii. 40.); the manna, of Christ himself, and of his

Rambach, Inst. Herm. Sacr. p. 72.

heavenly doctrine (John vi. 32.). The rock in the wilderness, whence water issued on being struck by Moses, represented Christ to the Israelites (1 Cor. x. 4.); and the entrance of the high-priest into the holy of holies, on the day of expiation, with the blood of the victim, is expressly stated by St. Paul to have prefigured the entrance of Jesus Christ into the presence of God, with his own blood (Heb. ix. 7—20.).

III. Sometimes, however, the mystical sense is intimated by the Holy Spirit in a more obscure manner; still we are led by various intimations to the knowledge of the spiritual or mystical meaning. This chiefly

occurs in the following cases.

1. When the antitype is proposed under figurative names taken from the Old Testament.

Thus, in 1 Cor. v. 7., Christ is called the Paschal Lamb: in 1 Cor. xv. 45., he is called the last Adam; the first Adam, therefore, was in some respect a type or figure of Christ; who in Ezek. xxxiv. 23., is further called David. In like manner, the kingdom of antichrist is mentioned under the appellations of Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon, in Rev. xi. 8. and xvi. 19.

2. When, by a manifest allusion of words and phrases, the Scripture refers one thing to another; or when the arguments of the inspired writers either plainly intimate it to have a spiritual meaning, or when such meaning is tacitly implied.

(1.) Thus, from Isai. ix. 4., which alludes to the victory obtained by Gideon (Judg. vii. 22.), we learn that this represents the victory which Christ should obtain by the preaching of the gospel, as Vitringa has largely shown on this passage.

(2.) So, when St. Paul is arguing against the Jews from the types of Sarah, Hagar, Melchisedek, &c., he supposes that in these memorable Old Testament personages there were some things in which Christ and his mystical body the church were delineated, and that these things were admitted by his opponents; otherwise his argument would be inconclusive. Hence it follows, that Isaac, and other persons mentioned in the Old Testament, of whom there is no typical or spiritual signification given in the scriptures, in express terms, were types of Christ in many things that happened to them, or were performed by them. In like manner, St. Paul shows, 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10., that the precept in Deut. xxv. 4., relative to the muzzling of oxen, has a higher spiritual meaning than is suggested by the mere letter of the command.

Such are the most important criteria, by which to ascertain whether a passage may require a spiritual interpretation or not. But, although these rules will afford essential assistance in enabling us to determine this point, it is another and equally important ques tion, in what manner that interpretation is to be regulated.

The general principles already laid down', with respect to the figurative and allegorical interpretation of the scriptures, are applicable to the spiritual exposition of the sacred writings. It only remains to add, that all mystical or spiritual interpretations must be such as really illustrate, not obscure or perplex the subject. Agreeably to the sound maxim adopted by divines, they must not be made the foundation of articles of faith, but must be offered only to explain or confirm what is elsewhere more clearly revealed2; and, above all, they must on no account or pretext whatever be sought after in matters of little moment.

In the spiritual interpretation of Scripture, there are two extremes

See chap. i., sections i., iii., iv. pp. 316-324, 332-343.

Est regula theologorum, sensum mysticum non esse argumentativum, hoc est, non suppeditare firma ac solida argumenta, quibus dogmata fidei inædificentur. Rambach, Inst. Herm. Sacr. lib. i. cap. iii. p. 72

to be avoided, viz. that we do not restrict such interpretation within too narrow limits; and, again, that we do not seek for mystical meanings in every passage, to the exclusion of its literal and common sense, when that sense is sufficiently clear. The latter of these two extremes is that to which men have in every age been most liable. Hence it is that we find instances of it in the more ancient Jewish doctors, especially in Philo, and among many of the fathers, as Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, and others, and particularly in Origen, who appears to have derived his system of allegorizing the sacred writings from the school of Plato. Nor are modern expositors altogether free from these extravagances.1

In these strictures, the author trusts he shall not be charged with improperly censuring "that fair and sober accommodation of the historical and parabolical parts to present times and circumstances, or to the elucidation of either the doctrines or precepts of Christianity, which is sanctioned by the word of God;" and which he has attempted to illustrate in the preceding criteria for ascertaining the mystical or spiritual meaning of the scriptures. Such an accommodation, it is justly remarked, is perfectly allowable, and may be highly useful; and in some cases it is absolutely necessary. "Let every truly pious man, however, be aware of the danger of extending this principle beyond its natural and obvious application; lest he should wander himself, and lead others also astray, from that clearlytraced and well-beaten path in which we are assured that even wayfaring man though a fool should not err.' Let no temptations, which vanity, a desire of popularity, or the more specious, but equally fallacious, plea of usefulness may present, seduce him from his tried On the contrary, let him adhere with jealous care to the plain and unforced dictates of the word of God; lest, by departing from the simplicity of the gospel, he should inadvertently contribute to

way.

a

Thus, Cocceius represented the entire history of the Old Testament as a mirror, which held forth an accurate view of the transactions and events that were to happen in the church under the New Testament dispensation, to the end of the world. He further affirmed that by far the greatest part of the ancient prophecies foretold Christ's ministry and mediation, together with the rise, progress, and revolutions of the church, not only under the figure of persons and transactions, but in a literal manner, and by the sense of the words used in these predictions. And he laid it down as a fundamental rule of interpretation that the words and phrases of Scripture are to be understood in EVERY SENSE of which they are susceptible; or, in other words, that they signify in effect every thing which they can signify Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, vol. v. pp. 378, 379. edit. 1826. These opinions have not been without their advocates in this country; and, if our limits permitted, we could adduce numerous instances of evident misinterpretations of the scriptures which have been occasioned by the adoption of them: one or two, however, must suffice. Thus, the ten commandments, or moral law, as they are usually termed, which the most pious and learned men in every age of the Christian church have considered to be rules or precepts for regulating the manners or conduct of men, both towards God and towards one another, have been referred to Jesus Christ, under the mistaken idea that they may be read with a new interest by believers! (See an exposition of the ten commandments on the above principle, if such a perversion of sense and reason may be so called, in the Bible Magazine, vol. iv. pp. 13, 14.) A modern writer on the continent has pushed the Cocceian hypothesis to the utmost bounds. According to his scheme, the incest of Lot and his daughters was permitted, only to be a sign of the salvation which the world was afterwards to receive from Jesus Christ; and Joshua the son of Nun significs the same thing as Jesus the son of Man!!! Kanne's Christus im Alten Testament, that is, Christ in the Old Testament, or Inquiries concerning the Adumbrations and Delineations of the Messiah. Nürnberg, 1818, 2 vols 8vo. (Mélanges de Religion, de Morale, et de Critique Sacrée, published at Nismes, tom. i. pp. 159, 160.) Comp. pp. 249, 250. supra.

the adulteration of Christianity, and to the consequent injury which must thence arise to the spiritual interests of his fellow-creatures."

IV. APPLICATION of the preceding principles to the spiritual interpretation of the miracles recorded in the New Testament.

Although (as we have already observed) the design of miracles 2 is to mark the divine interposition, yet, when reading of the miracles recorded in the sacred writings, we are not to lose sight of the moral and religious instruction concealed under them, and especially under the miracles performed by our Saviour. "All his miracles,' indeed, "were undoubtedly so many testimonies that he was sent from God; but they were much more than this, for they were all of such a kind, and attended with such circumstances, as give us an insight into the spiritual state of man, and the great work of his salvation." They were significant emblems of his designs, and figures aptly representing the benefits to be conferred by him upon mankind, and had in them a spiritual sense.

Thus, he cast out evil spirits, who, by the divine providence, were permitted to exert themselves at that time, and to possess many persons. By this act he showed that he came to destroy the empire of Satan, and that, wheresoever his doctrine should prevail, idolatry and vice should be put to flight. He gave sight to the blind, a miracle well suiting him who brought immortality to light, and taught truth to an ignorant world. Lucem caliganti reddidit mundo, applied by Quintus Curtius to a Roman emperor, can be strictly applied to Christ, and to him alone. No prophet ever did this miracle before him, as none ever made the religious discoveries which he made. Our Saviour himself leads us to this observation, and sets his miracle in the same view, saying upon that occasion, I am the light of the world; I am come into this world, that they which see not might see. — He cured the deaf, and the dumb, and the lame, and the infirm, and cleansed the lepers, and healed all manner of sicknesses, to show at the same time that he was the physician of souls, which have their diseases corresponding in some manner to those of the body, and are deaf, and dumb, and impotent, and paralytic, and leprous in the spiritual sense. He fed the hungry multitudes by a miracle, which aptly represented his heavenly doctrine, and the gospel preached to the poor, and which he himself so explains, saying, I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. — He raised the dead, a miracle peculiarly suiting him, who at the last day should call forth all mankind to appear before him; and, therefore, when he raised Lazarus he uttered those majestic words, I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. He performed some miracles upon persons who were not of his own nation, and it was so ordered by divine providence, that these persons, as the centurion, the Syrophoenician woman, the Samaritan leper, should show a greater degree of faith and of

1 Christian Observer for 1805, vol. iv. p. 133. The two preceding pages of this journal contain some admirable remarks on the evils of spiritualizing the sacred writings too much. The same topic is also further noticed in volume xvi. for 1817, pp. 319, &c. Many important observations on the history and abuses of spiritual interpretation will be found in the late Rev. J. J. Conybeare's Bampton Lectures for 1824. The whole of Bishop Horne's preface to his commentary on the Psalms is equally worthy of perusal for its excellent observations on the same question. The misapplication and abuse of spiritual interpretation are also pointed out by Bishop Vanmildert, Bampton Lectures, pp.

241. &c.

The nature and evidence of miracles are discussed in Vol. I. pp. 203-270.

gratitude than the Jews to whom the same favours were granted. This was an indication that the gospel would be more readily received by the Gentiles than by the Jews, and this our Saviour intimates, saying, when he had commended the centurion's faith, Many shall come from the east and from the west, from the north and from the south, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into utter darkness.

It were easy to adduce other instances, but the preceding will suffice to establish the rule; especially as the spiritual import of the Christian miracles is particularly considered by every writer that has expressly illustrated them, but by no one with more sobriety than by Dr. Jortin, to whom we are indebted for most of the preceding illustrations.'

SECTION III.

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF TYPES.

I. Nature of a type-II. Different species of types, Chevallier's classification.-1. Legal or ritual types.—2. Prophetical types.-3. Historical types.-III. Rules for the interpretation of types. — İV. Remarks on the interpretation of symbols.

I. A TYPE, in its primary and literal meaning, simply denotes a rough draught, or less accurate model, from which a more perfect image is made; but, in the sacred or theological sense of the term, a type may be defined to be a symbol of something future and distant, or an example prepared and evidently designed by God to prefigure that future thing. What is thus prefigured is called the antitype.2

1. The first characteristic of a type is its ADUMBRATION OF THE

THING TYPIFIED.

One thing may adumbrate another, either in something which it has in common with the other; as the Jewish victims by their death represented Christ, who in the fulness of time was to die for mankind, or in a symbol of some property possessed by the other; as the images of the cherubim, placed in the inner sanctuary of the temple, beautifully represented the celerity of the angels of heaven, not indeed by any celerity of their own, but by wings of curious contrivance, which exhibited an appropriate symbol of swiftness, or in any other way, in which the thing representing can be compared with the thing represented; as Melchisedek the priest of the Most High God represented Jesus Christ our priest. For, though Melchisedek was not an eternal priest, yet the sacred writers have attributed to him a slender and shadowy appearance of eternity, by not mentioning the genealogy of his parents, his birth or death, as they commonly do in the case of other eminent persons.

1 See Dr. Jortin, Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii. pp. 8-16. (edit. 1810.). See also Dr. Dodd, Discourses on the Miracles of the New Testament; and Dr. Collyer, Lectures on Scripture Miracles.

Outram, De Sacrificiis, lib. i. cap. 18., or p. 215. of Mr Allen's accurate translation. This work is of singular value to the divinity student; as affording, in a comparatively smal compass, one of the most masterly vindications of the vicarious atonement of Christ that ever was published.