curred, it is in accommodation to the spiritual sense, to which the letter is held subordinate, and must always bend, but as the end aimed at in our last lecture, was to show that there must be an internal sense to the Word, therefore, we adduced only such passages as are either not true, or are unintelligible according to the sense of the letter.

"But some, perhaps, are ready to ask, if there really be an internal sense to the Word, why have not some of the great and good men of the first Christian Church believed and taught it? For if it be possible to prove from Scripture, not only the necessity, but the actual existence of an internal sense, we should suppose that the fact itself would have been noticed aud acknowledged by some, at least, of the former Church; although the precise character of this internal sense, and the principles according to which it is to be developed, might not have been understood. This was the case in respect to the Lord's first advent. The Jews, relying on the promises contained in their Scriptures, were in the acknowledgment that a Messiah was to come, although they did not understand in what character He would appear, nor what kind of kingdom He was coming to establish. Now if the Word really contains a spiritual sense, (as the writings of the New Church teach,) and does itself actually bear testimony to the existence of such a sense, why, it may be fairly asked, has there not been some general or confused notion of it in the first Christian Church?

"Before proceeding, therefore, to our Scripture argument in proof of the existence of an internal sense, it may be proper and useful, briefly to consider this question; to see if some of the greatest and best men in the first Christian Church have not had a pretty strong conviction, that there is a deeper meaning in the Word, or in some parts of it at least, than that which is contained in the sense of the letter. Upon this subject, therefore, let us hear the opinion of some eminently learned and pious men in the Old Church, who have written upon the subject of biblical criticism.

"The Rev. Bishop Horne considers the spiritual sense as superior to the literal in point of importance,' in his "Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Scriptures.' 'The literal sense,' he says, 'it has been well

observed, is undoubtedly first in point of nature, as well as in order of signification; and consequently, when investigating the meaning of any passage, this must be ascertained, before we proceed to search out its mystical import; but the true and genuine mystical, or spiritual sense, excels the literal in dignity, the latter being only the medium of conveying the former, which is more evidently designed by the Holy Spirit. For instance, in Numbers xxi. 8, 9, compared with John iii. 14, the brazen serpent is said to have been lifted up, in order to signify the lifting up of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world; and consequently, that the type might serve to designate the antetype.' (Vol. II., part 2, ch. vi., fourth edition.)

"Again, Bishop Horne lays it down as a canon of interpretation, that the same prophecies frequently have a double meaning, and refer to different events; the one near, the other remote; the one temporal, the other spiritual, or perhaps eternal. (Vol II., part 2, ch. vii. § 2, can. 1.)

"The Rev. Dr. John Clarke, another profound scholar and excellent man, in his ' Inquiry into the Origin of Evil,' in the folio collection of Boyle's Lectures, Vol. III., p. 229, says 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 to 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 explanation, the things are plain and easy to every one's capacity, make the deepest and most lasting impressions 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 form of religious worship; every one of which was intended to show the obligation or recommend the practice of some moral duty, and was esteemed of no further use than as it produced that effect. And the same 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 of 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, and corresponding in the general nature and intention of the thing, though very different in kind.

"It therefore appears plainly from this, that Dr. Clarke was of the opinion that there must be, and is, a spiritual sense to some parts of Scripture at least.

"Again, the learned Dr. Lowth, in his commentary upon the prophecy of Isaiah, maintains that the portion of this book from chapter xl. to the end, treats in its ulterior and most important sense, of the Lord's advent upon earth, and upon the establishment by Him of a spiritual kingdom. This is what the doctor calls the evangelical sense of prophecy,' which he says is so apparent, and stands forth in so strong a light, that some interpreters cannot see that it has any other; and will not allow the prophecy to have any relation at all to the return from the captivity of Babylon.' But he gives it as his own opinion, that the return of the Jews from Babylon is the first, though not the principal thing in the prophet's view.' And after showing that natural or outward events, as recorded in the literal sense, were referred to by the prophet, he concludes with these words: If the literal sense of this prophecy, as above explained, cannot be questioned, much less, surely, can the spiritual; which I think is allowed on all hands, even by Grotius himself. And if both are to be admitted, here is a plain example of the mystical allegory, or double sense, as it is commonly called, of prophecy, which the sacred writers of the New Testament clearly suppose; and according to which they frequently frame their interpretations of the Old Testament.'

"We will quote the language of but one other writer in proof of the fact, that among modern biblical commentators, there has existed an opinion that the sacred Scriptures do contain some other meaning than that which is conveyed by the strict letter of the text. Bishop Warburton, in his Divine Legation, b. iv., § 4., says:

"The old Asiatic style, so highly figurative, seems, by what we find of its remains in the prophetic language of the sacred; writings, to have been evidently fashioned to the

mode of ancient hieroglyphics, both curiologic and tropical; of the second kind which answers to the tropical hieroglyphic, is the calling empires, kings and nobles, by the names of the heavenly luminaries, the sun, moon, and stars; their temporary disaster, or final overthrow, by eclipses and extinction; the destruction of the nobility, by stars falling from the firmament; hostile invasions, by thunder and tempestuous winds; the leaders of armies, conquerors and founders of empires, by lions, bears, elephants, goats, or high trees. In a word, the prophetic style seems to be a speaking hieroglyphic.'

"These few extracts from the writings of some of the most distinguished biblical scholars of modern times, may show that there has been in the first Christian church a perception and acknowledgment of something besides the mere literal sense in some parts of the Word, at least. All modern commentators, however, have not been of this opinion. The learned Dr. Mosheim, for example, lays it down as a golden rule,' that the Scriptures contain but one sense, which is that of the letter. And probably, theologians in the prevailing church are more generally principled in this doctrine of Dr. Mosheim at the present day, than at any former period. For it is a remarkable fact, that as we go back in the history of the church towards the time of the primitive Christians, we find the opinion that the Word does contain an internal sense, becoming more and more prevalent in the church the more we approach to that early period. Any one may satisfy himself upon this point, who will consult the best writers in Ecclesiastical History.

"And now-passing by the writers upon theology at subsequent periods-let us see what opinion the primitive Christians entertained on this subject, according to the eminent writer of Ecclesiastical History, Dr. Mosheim. Speaking of the manner of interpreting Scripture in the first century, this learned author says:

"Those who performed the office of interpreters, studied above all things plainness and perspicuity. At the same time it must be acknowledged that, even in this century, several Christians adopted that absurd and corrupt custom used among the Jews, of darkening the plain words of the holy Scriptures by insipid and forced allegories, and

of drawing them violently from their proper and natural signification, in order to extort from them certain mysterious and hidden significations. For a proof of this we need go no farther than the epistle of Barnabas, which is yet extant.' Cent. 1. part 2., chap. III. § 2.

66

Again, this author mentions among the illustrious writers of the second century, and men most renowned for their piety and erudition, the names of Pantaemes, Clemens the Alexandrian, Tatian, Justin Martyr, and Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch. And concerning these distinguished luminaries in the church, he says: They all attributed a double sense to the words of Scripture, the one obvious and literal, the other hidden and mysterious, which lay concealed, as it were, under the veil of the outward letter. The former they treated with the utmost neglect, and turned the whole force of their genius and application to unfold the letter.' Cent. II. part 2., chap. III., § 1, 5.

"Among the Christian fathers of the third century, the name of Origen stands pre-eminent. Speaking of the principal writers that distinguished themselves in it, (the third century,) by their learned and pious productions,' Dr. Mosheim says: The most eminent of these, whether we consider the extent of his fame, or the multiplicity of his books, was Origen, presbyter and catechist of Alexandria, a man of vast and uncommon abilities, and the greatest learning of the Christian world that this age exhibited to view. His virtues and his labors deserve the admiration of all ages, and his name will be transmitted with honor through the annals of time as long as learning and genius shall be esteemed among men.' Cent. III., part 2., chap. II., § 7.

"Such is the eulogistic language which one historian. employs in speaking of Origen. And he tells us in another chapter that this illustrious man maintained and taught that the principal wisdom of God's Word lies within or above the letter. To cite his own language:

"He (Origen) alleged that the words of Scripture were in many places absolutely void of sense, and that though in others there were, indeed, certain notions conveyed under the outward terms according to their literal force and import, yet it was not in these that the true meaning of the