tation of parables, much to be determined by that sobriety of mind which both public commentators and private Christians ought conscientiously and carefully to cultivate. But the temp tations to excess in this case, will always, we think, be greatly weakened by considering, (1.) That spiritual expositions, which rest on our own authority, can never be accepted as argumentative; a principle which those Divines who have indulged most in allegory, have generally admitted as an abstract principle, though they did not always regard its practice: (2.)That the typical persons and things, already verified by Apostolic authority, are so numerous as to leave nothing wanting for the general exposition of the intent, and use, and beauty, and glory of the dispensations which preceded the Gospel: and, (3.) That, almost in every case, the very same truths which a spiritual expositor, if of sober judgment, can bring out of doubtful instances, are already prepared to his hand, by explicit and unequivocal declaration, and are thus invested with an authority which it would be most blameable in him to overlook or undervalue. In the way of illustration, and moral use, the whole field is open to the Preacher and the practical Writer, and the only rules which are necessary to regulate this practice, are those which good sense and good taste will always supply, and which they only can supply. Now we are upon the general subject, we shall reverse the author's order, and postpone his historical sketches, to a few extracts from the excellent Lecture which closes this interesting volume. On the subject of "accommodation," the following passage contains a just distinction. "It has been repeatedly urged in the course of these Lectures, (and I would you not therefore at this momeat detain by entering more fully upon the question,) that it does not appear reasonable, I would even say, logically possible, for those who do acknowledge the real and immediate inspiration of Scripture, to evade the acknowledgment also of a secondary and spiritual sense actually existing in those portions of the Old Testament so quoted or alluded to in the New, that even though we admit some few passages (and this perhaps were best abstained from) to be thus accommodated or deflected (as CALVIN has expressed it) to a purport foreign to could, we should think, either justify their original intention, no Christian himself or benefit others in the universal application of a theory so palpably derogatory, in its first and most immediate deductions, to the honour of the Gospel and its Divine Author. I would now only observe, that in more than one instance the supposed necessity for having recourse to this theory has arisen only from the apprehension, that matters quoted or referred to by the Apostles, and even by our LORD himself, merely in illustration of their precepts or warnings, were adduced by them, and to be regarded therefore by ourselves, as having a character originally symbolical or typical. To confine ourselves to a single case. Our blessed LORD, in warning his disciples that they hold themselves in faithful and constant preparation for the suddenuess of that coming, and the degreat day of his coming, illustrates the struction in which it shall involve the careless and impenitent, by a natural and striking reference to the condition of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah in the days of LOT, and those of the whole earth in the days of NOAH. In that part of this awful denunciation which appears to bear an immediate and primary reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, 'He that is in the field,' (it is said,) let him Upon this allusion, GLASSIUS (whose labours we have already noticed, and who may certainly be regarded in general as a temperate and cautious expositor) insists as a proof of the allegorical (he might equally well have named it the typical) intention of this and other passages of the Old Testament. It were not difficult to multiply instances where matter applied merely as illustrative of the case or argument in hand, has been considered, without any adequate reason, as possessing originally a typical or prospective character." (pp. 299-301.) not return back. Remember LoT's wife.' In a more general view of the subject, the author has the following discriminating remarks :— "In pursuing our subject in the detail, it will (unless I be much mistaken) appear, that some confusion has arisen from the divisions of the secondary or mediate sense which have been adopted in different ages. It has long since been admitted that this was unquestionably the case as to the threefold division of the patristical and Roman Catholic Schools. Later Divines have, assuredly with a much closer approximation to critical accuracy, followed GLASSIUS in referring all such meanings to one of the three general heads of allegory, type, or parable. To myself it appears that the question would be ridded of some encumbrances, and no injury offered to the legitimate interpretation of Scripture, by considering the former (allegory) as a generic term, equally applicable to both the latter. The type being an allegory founded on that which is real, the parable an allegory founded on that which is simply possible, or even in some cases imaginary. The illustrations usually given in systematic works of the allegory, considered as a distinct species, are very few, and those few by no means satisfactory; and the only reason for so considering it which should seem to possess even the show of authority, is that drawn from the wellknown passage of ST. PAUL, in which the history of SARAH and HAGAR is said to be allegorized: (aλλnyopovμeva.) I can certainly however see no objection to regarding the term as used in this place generically, and the narrative itself as having the same typical and prefigurative character which has been uniformly ascribed to that of JACOB and ESAU. "The two species of type and parable are separated by a line sufficiently marked and obvious to all; nor is there any doubt, as to the latter, of the extent to which it prevails, or the places where it may be found in the sacred volume of either covenant. The former presents more of difficulty on these points, and its investigation has given rise to much variety of opinion, and to some controversy. That wheresoever any person or thing is decidedly proposed in Scripture as the type of another, the rumos, XIX TOU MEλovros, it is to be at once acknowledged as such on that authority, it has been fully conceded. But here a question immediately arises as to the real extent in each case of the typical character so established. And on this point whatsoever may have been the practice of some, it has been unquestionably the uniform advice of the most considerate and intelligent writers on scriptural interpretation, that we should abstain from, or use at least the greatest caution in, pushing the analogy beyond that point to which the authority of Revelation has extended it. Thus where we find ST. PAUL, by a singular usage perhaps of the word rumos, expressing that connexion and contrast which existed between the first and the second ADAM, and his illustration of the subject, amounting strictly to this, that as in (the one) ADAM all die, in (the one) CHRIST shall all be made alive; ' are we therefore authorized to pursue this same idea of relation through all the circumstances of our first parents' creation and fail? to advance, that, as Eve was drawn forth from the side of ADAM, so from the wounded side of our REDEEMER was drawn his mystic consort, the Church of the faithful? that as ADAM was made on the sixth day, and did eat the fruit at the sixth hour, so our LORD was crucified on the same day, and at the same hour? that as ADAM's soul was in spiritual darkness from the sixth to the ninth hour, so the earth was covered by the material darkness which succeeded our LORD's death, for the same space of time? That DAVID in his kingly power and character typified the future King of the spiritual Israel; that in the sufferings and sorrows which caused him so repeatedly and pathetically to pour out his soul before Gon, he bore, however faintly and imperfectly, the figure of him who for us suffered and sorrowed as no man ever has or could, we readily grant: and though, in this case, we may not be able to assent to all that is proposed even by a HORNE or a HORSLEY, yet by denying this typical character of the royal Psalmist, we incur the danger at least of sacrificing to the excessive and ungrounded indulgence of critical refinement, means of personal edification and advancement in the love of CHRIST, which no man may despise or overlook with safety. But are these feelings, we would ask, enhanced or enlivened, are we not rather disposed to suspect and doubt the grounds on which we have hitherto cherished them, when it is urged to us by our partners in this blessed faith and hope of the Christian, that the voice and harp of DAVID expelling the evil spirit of SAUL prefigured the authority with which our LORD commanded the evil spirits, and they obeyed him;' that the rescue of DAVID's two wives from the hands of the Amalekites prefigured the rescue of the spiritual sisters, Israel and Judah, both the daughters of one mother, the heavenly Jerusalem? (1 Sam. xxx. 17, 18.) t were easy to occupy a much longer time with instances which show abundantly the necessity and wisdom of restricting in general our exposition of Scriptural types to those express points in which the Scripture itself authorizes us to consider them as typical, or which immediately fow from the nature of the relation or character which we are taught to regard as constituting the analogy between the type and its antitype. Thus we readily grant that AARON, as the appointed high priest of JEHOVAH, was a rea and intelligible type of him who is made for us a high priest for ever; and that the sacrifices which he offered were typical. Admitting this, we can see no absurdity in admitting also, that when in his sacerdotal character he stood betwixt the living and the dead, and stayed the plague from Israel, he exhibited the prefiguration and symbol of a yet higher deliverance. And there are types, it may be added, of so general and extensive a character, as to admit, by the fairest deductions of criticism, the application of much that is said concerning them to the known character and features of their established antitype. This appears to be especially the case with respect to the sacrifices of the Mosaic ritual, and the analogy exist ing between the typical and the spiritual Israel; an analogy which I cannot but regard as intentionally and largely adumbrated in all the prophetic writings. And here I would suggest, that a very considerable safeguard may be found in the restriction mentioned in a former Lecture, as proposed by some Divines of the last century: That we are not, namely, to look for any secondary or mystical sense in the Scriptures, but such as is inherent in and consequential upon the typical; that typical sense being, as I have stated, determined by and limited to the real and essential points of analogy between the correspondent objects." (pp. 301-310.) On several other equally important points, the concluding Lecture comes in as a judicious guide. Our limits will allow only of a few selections from the author's admirably drawn characters of the Expositors of Scripture, in the successive ages of the church. To his sketches of the leading Fathers of the Greek and Latin Churches, we have already adverted. The influence of the writers among the Hellenistic Jews, and of the schools of Alexandria, in inducing the extravagances into which, in different degrees, they carried their mystical interpretations, is pointed out, and their character, as writers, drawn with an able hand; but we must omit these for the sake of names more familiar, because nearer to our own times, and because the influence of their example as interpreters of Scripture, with reference to its spiritual sense, bears more directly upon the theology of the day. We do not, let it be observed, quote the whole of the author's observations on the few we shall select; but those parts only which are the most DE LYRA. NICOLAUS DE LYRA, ERASMUS." In his celebrated Paraphrase on the Books of the New Testament, (composed between the years 1517 and 1524,) ERASMUS professedly deviates from the example of his predecessors, if not in abstaining altogether from the allegorical method, yet in using it much more sparingly and cautiously. And in his treatise, entitled the Preacher, (Ecclesiastes,) a treatise calculated to give the most just and favourable notions of the character and powers of his mind, and even in the present day to benefit as well as interest the theological student, he has entered more fully into the consideration of its validity and necessary limitations. He commences by stating fully and unreservedly the erroneous principles and practices with which even the earlier Fathers (he specifies ORIGEN, and his imitators HILARY and AMBROSE) were on this score most justly chargeable, not only in their moral and spiritual compositions, but in the conduct also of their doctrinal controversies with the opponents of the Church. Exempla' (he urges with truth and feeling) crebrius sunt obvia quam vellemus.' Nor does he hesitate to condemn the excessive fondness for allegorizing even the plainest statements of fact and of history, which distinguished (as we have already noticed) the great oracles of his Church, JEROME and AUGUSTINE. "But for the more limited and prudent use of the allegorical method, he contends with the earnestness of one who felt its spiritual and practical value. The use and value of such a spiritual understanding of the Scriptures, beyond that which is to be derived from a mere acquiescence in the outward letter, he affirms to be, that, wheresoever it arises out of fair and reasonable grounds of analogy, it contributes to strengthen the impressions made by religious truth, to interest the affections more deeply and constantly in its behalf, to stimulate us to higher exertions, and to console us under the doubts and difficulties of the Christian warfare." (pp. 220-225.) - MELANCTHON.-" ERASMUS was imitated by the amiable and liberal MELANC THON. Even at the early age of two and twenty, and some years before the sentiments of the former on this point had been fully and systematically detailed in his Ecclesiastes, the latter had, in a work partly dedicated to the expository and hortatory labours of the Christian ministry, considered our subject at some length, and with his usual good sense and Christian temper. Deriving probably his general view of the question rfom the paraphrase of his predecessor, a work with which he could scarcely be unacquainted, he reprobates strongly the absurd and childish allegories of the schoolmen, and rejects the fourfold sense which they attached to Scripture, on the ground of its vagueness and uncertainty. He urges the necessity of looking to one single, intelligible, and well-founded signification in every paragraph of the sacred text; while be admits the typical intention of much that it contains, to an extent perhaps in which the severer judgment of some among those who succeeded him, would not altogether have acquiesced: these, however, he restricts carefully to objects of a nature purely spiritual, to the kingdom of our LORD, the covenant of grace, and the faith and duties of the Christian." (pp. 230-232.) But LUTHER.-"The examples of ERASMUS and MELANCTION were not lost upon the great Father of the Reformation. LUTHER, whose gigantic mind found space and power, amid all the hurry of his practical and controversial exertions not only to translate, but to comment, largely upon the Scriptures, has more than once deliberately and distinctly expressed his disapprobation of this mode of exposition, as it was practised and admired by the votaries of the Romish see. 'Literalis sensus Scripturæ,' he affirms, 'solus tota est fidei et theologiæ Christianæ substantia;' and to the neglect of the literal sense he attributes the orgin of many heretical and mistaken notions. 'Allegoriæ,' he contends, ad probandam nihil valent;' or, as he elsewhere expresses it, Non pariunt firmss probationes in theologiâ, sed velut picturæ ornant et illustrant rem.' carefully and powerfully as LUTHER lays down on this head (and it were easy to multiply quotations to the same effect) a principle of interpretation so well calculated to guard against the excess and error of his predecessors, he was yet in his own practice occasionally betrayed by the fervour of his imagination, and his attachment, perhaps, to the writings of AUGUSTINE, into an inadvertency in the admission of allegorical glosses, which we should scarcely anticipate from the tenor of his abstract positions. Thus in the commencement of the book of Genesis he sees the person and operation, and in the ladder of JACOB, the earthly appearance of our LORD. Gilead he finds the type of Holy Scripture; in the seventh day, that of our LORD's rest in the tomb; and in the eighth, that of eternal life. la But these inconsistences, the trißing defects or oversight of a mind acute and energetic far bevond the common lot of man, operated, in all probability, much less forcibly upon the minds of his admirers and followers, than the spirit of his general principles, and unqualified opposition to the more superstitious application of the allegorical method, which had for centuries contributed to rivet the fetters imposed by the faith of Rome both on the conscience and the intellect of mankind." (pp. 232-235.) CALVIN. Ourquotation here must be more lengthened, as this divine was the father of the doctrine of "accommodation," as applied to the quotations from the Old Testament, in the New. "LUTHER had for his fellow-labourer in the great cause of Scripture and of truth, one who, to equal learning and acuteness, joined a severer and more philosophical temper of mind. CALVIN, with the resolute and undissembling confidence which so strongly marked the whole of his character and proceedings, adopted principles of exposition which, since the condemnation of THEODORUS in the fifth century, had scarcely perhaps been heard of, had assuredly never been entertained in the Christian Church. ERASMUS, indeed, and LUTHER had, as we have seen, strongly and uniformly reprobated the neglect of the literal interpretation, and the abuse of the allegorical to the purposes of a blind and mischievous superstition. All the abler Doctors of the Church had acknowledged, in their systems, at least, and canonical decisions, that, considered per se, that sense was at no time argumentative and probative; and had determined accordingly, that it was in all cases to be accommodated to, and strictly limited by the orthodox rule of faith. But CALVIN saw clearly that if such a concession and such restrictions were made upon any reasonable and intelligible grounds, it must be admitted that the method itself had no ultimate foundation in truth; that it was (as for ages received and practised by most theologians) little better than the result of mere human imagination and ingenuity. In his great work on the Institutes of Christianity we find accordingly no reference to, and no endeavour to avail himself of an auxiliary so weak and uncertain. In his Commentaries upon Scripture, (Commentaries, which, though in the exercise of our Christian liberty we may freely question and dissent from many points both of doctrine and discipline maintained by their illustrious author, are yet never to be perused without admiration and instruction, or mentioned without respect and gratitude,) he distinctly and constantly rejects every form of the older allegory and mysticism, insisting only upon that which he held to be either clearly and literally prophetical, or fairly deducible from the figurative character borne by those to whom the Gospel had taught us to look as the unquestionable types of the incarnate Word. As to the number of passages which might be considered as belonging to the former class, if CALVIN erred, his error was assuredly not upon the side of excess. In the discovery and application of those which might be included in the latter, it were not very difficult for a warm and imaginative mind to proceed to a length of extravagance but little inferior to that of the earlier allegorists. This was not, however, the disposition of the cautious and austere reformer. In many cases where we should not object, at least, to those who affixed a secondary and typical meaning to the original text, (as in those passages especially which have been supposed to bear a double relation to the Jewish and to the Christian Church,) he appears disposed rather to ground such an application on the parity or similarity of the subjects and their condition, than upon any thing of a distinctly typical and prophetical character. Even in many of the passages quoted by the writers of the New Testament from the oracles of the Law and the Prophets, he is disposed to look not so much for an intention originally spiritual and predictive of higher things, as for the authoritative application of a new and more extended sense by the inspired transcribers themselves. Of this system, well known by the title which he does not himself scruple to use, of accommodation, he may be regarded perhaps, so far as modern theology is concerned, as the first and most eminent patron and advocate." (pp. 235-239.) TYNDAL." In our own country, the earlier patrons and instruments of the Reformation appear, so far as we may judge from their practice, to have been fully aware, that the allegorical method of their forefathers was indeed both questionable and liable to much and serious misapplication. TYNDAL, the great and laborious champion and confessor of our new built Zion, while he fully admits the spiritual application of all that is confessedly typical, condemns strongly the fourfold division of Scripture, and mystical perversion of its contents, still retained by the Church of Rome; and insists no less strongly on the use and value of its literal exposition. 'We may,' he asserts, and it were un⚫ |