expressed more clearly and impressively than is practicable by mere literal language.

Another common error is the ascription of specific figures to passages in which no such figures, nor any others, exist. Hundreds of examples might be quoted of this mistake. It will be sufficient to allege a single one, in the interpretation of Christ's prediction (Matt. xxiv. 30):

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn : and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

Here are three propositions. 1. That the sign of the Son of Man in heaven shall then be apparent. 2. That all the tribes of the earth shall then mourn. 3. And that they-all the tribes of the earth-shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. The nominative of the first of these propositions, or that of which the affirmation is made, is the sign of the Son of Man in heaven; the nominatives of the second and third, are all the tribes of the earth. Now these propositions are by many regarded as metaphorical; and the events accordingly which they foreshow are held to be wholly different from those which they lite

rally express; and to have happened at the siege, capture, and destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in the reign of Vespasian. But it is a total error. There is no metaphor in them. It is seen from the 4th and 5th characteristics of that figure, that it lies wholly in the affirmative part of the proposition in which it occurs, in contradistinction from its nominative, or the subject to which it is applied; and that it consists in the ascription of something to its nominative that is not proper to its nature; as when the fields are said to smile, the metaphor lies in the use of the verb smile, and in the ascription by it to the fields of a movement of which they are not literally capable, in order to signify, that when decked with verdure and flowers, and lighted up by the beams of the sun, they exhibit a cheerfulness that resembles a smile of the human countenance. But there is no such incompatibility of the acts or states here foreshown with the subjects of which they are predicted. It is not incompatible with the nature of the sign of the Son of Man in heaven that it should be visible to men. So far from it, its office as a sign, that is, as a portent, a signal, a harbinger, will necessarily require that it should be apparent. An invisible sign, an imperceptible signal, were a contradiction. Nor is it impossible to the nature of the tribes of the earth,

that they should see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, and that they should mourn because of it. Instead, they are acts that are proper to them, and such as they will naturally and unavoidably exert, when the advent of Christ takes place. The supposition that those propositions are metaphorical is thus altogether mistaken, and betrays an extraordinary inconsideration of the nature of the figure.

On the other hand, it is equally apparent that the language is not metaphorical, from the consideration that there are no analogous events which the verbs can be conceived to denote. As according to the third law of the metaphor, the nominative, or name of the subject to which it is applied, is always used in its literal sense, and denotes the actual agent or subject of the act or event which the figure is employed to express; the sign of the Son of Man in heaven is to be the actual subject of the event, whatever it be, that is denoted by the sign's appearing. What analogous event then is there, which its appearing —that is, its becoming visible to men-can, on the supposition that the verb is used by a metaphor, be conceived to denote? There plainly is none. Let these interpreters search the whole realm of events, and they will find it impossible to designate one

that shall at once be proper to the nature of a sign or signal, and yet shall not be its actually appearing; while it shall nevertheless resemble its becoming apparent. In order to be a signal, it must be perceptible by the senses; and if at a considerable distance, as it undoubtedly will be, that is beyond the limits of our atmosphere, must be perceptible by the eye; as sound, the only other medium of perception, cannot be propagated from beyond the circuit of the atmosphere. It is equally impossible, also, to conceive of resembling acts which the seeing of the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, and mourning because of it, can denote. All the tribes of the earth are, according to the third law of the figure, to be the agents of the acts, whatever they are, denoted by seeing the Son of Man, and mourning.

What act, then, at once proper to their nature, and yet differing from mourning, while it resembles it, can their mourning be conceived to signify? Or what act, at once proper to their nature, and yet differing from seeing the Son of Man coming in the clouds, while it resembles it, can their seeing him coming in that manner be imagined to denote? Can these interpreters designate any? A seeing of the Romans invading Judea, and besieging, capturing, and destroying Jerusalem, is not such an analogous

act; as, to say nothing of the difference of the object, the act, in order to be analogous, must not be an act of sight, which would be identically the same; but an act of perception, by a different organ at least, or by the intellect instead of the senses. Besides, there is no analogy between Christ's coming in the clouds with power and great glory to destroy his enemies, redeem his people, raise the holy dead, and establish his throne on the earth, and the Roman army invading Judea, and capturing and destroying Jerusalem. No personages, no acts, no events, can be more utterly unlike. The fancy that the passage is metaphorical is thus altogether groundless, and the meaning which it is employed to fasten on it a wild extravagance. Had these interpreters understood the laws of the metaphor, they would not have run into this extraordinary

error.

Another frequent error, is the disregard of the proper characteristics of figures that exist in passages, and ascription to them of functions that are wholly foreign to their nature. There is an example of this in the construction that is often put on Matt. xxiv. 27:

"For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be."