doctrines, in the sense in which they are put forth, and may be comprised in the words, Queen, Church, and People. But the queen must be a tory queen-with real power-who not only reigns, but governs by her own will; the church must be a high church, either Romanist or Puseyite, or a blending of both together; and the people must be a people, fed with good butcher's meat certainly, but clad in coarse woollens, and humbly disposed to bow to the right divine of princes and of priests. But these jaded, outworn doctrines, however picturesque and medieval they may seem on paper, are gone for ever by, and are abhorrent to the people of England; and though they may please the romantic taste of pure Caucasians, and find favour with scions of aristocracy, more poetical than wise or far seeing, yet they never again can find large favour in this good land of ours.

ART. IX. The Bampton Lecture for the year 1824; being an attempt to trace the history, and to ascertain the limits of the secondary and spiritual interpretation of Scripture. By J. J. CONYBEARE, M.A. Oxford, 1824. 8vo.

It has sometimes been said, that an interpreter must come to the Bible free from all bias in favour of particular sentiments, or that his mind should be in a state absolutely passive for the reception of truth. The exegete' says Rückert, is neither orthodox nor heterodox, neither a supernaturalist, rationalist, nor pantheist; he is actuated neither by pious feelings nor those of a contrary character; he is neither moral nor immoral; neither of tender sensibilities nor the reverse.' Sternly insensible must such a man be to the sublime and the beautiful of Scripture. He is an ecclesiastical stoic. He brings to the understanding of the divine word a mind all but vacant; and when it is filled with the knowledge of words and the ideas they are meant to convey, he sits down contented with a goodly treasure. But the imagined verbal treasure is unattractive and uninteresting. It acts feebly on the whole man with his complex desires and aspirations. It is in the possession of a master so straightforward in pursuing his one object, that it is dissociated from the soul's inmost emotions, receiving no ornament from the mind which guards it with the watchful jealousy of a jailer. But this is impossible. The picture cannot be realized. The character sketched is imaginary. We must approach the fountain of sacred truth with our diversified emotions and tendencies in a state of activity. Whatever

be the complexion of our mental phenomena, or the habits of thought and feeling that predominate, it is impossible to bid them away as soon as the task of a scripture interpreter is undertaken. Such as they are, we carry them along with us into the business of exposition. The man who is endowed with a fine imagination, does not divest himself of it when commencing to cultivate the biblical field. He may perchance lay it under arrest at the beginning of his course; but it will afterwards and insensibly arise with wonted vigour, to assert its former supremacy. The person who possesses steady sobriety of judgment naturally exhibits the same characteristic, in all the subjects to which his attention is directed. The particular states of mind which have been cultivated more than others, will present the fact of their cultivation in all inquiries, literary and religious. The truth of these remarks is attested by sound philosophy, and amply borne out by the voice of experience. Former views and sentiments, prepossessions, and even prejudices, do bias the best expositor. It is true that he may suppose himself free from undue influences, and regard his strict impartiality with complacency; but he will have leanings, more or less strong, towards particular opinions. He will be turned in a certain direction by the influence of preoccupying notions. Absolute impartiality in interpretation is a thing unattained and unattainable. It belongs not to man in this life of imperfect development. It is beyond the reach of depraved humanity. Nor is it always blameworthy to be thus biased in favour of particular sentiments. If the heart be renewed by divine grace, it will be more ready to adopt such senses as seem to harmonise with the most extended holiness. It will all the more easily find doctrinal opinions already regarded as essential to the genius of the gospel; while others less congenial to the current of divine truth, according to a preceding estimate, will be extracted with difficulty from the sacred page.

Amid the vast variety of modes which men pursue in explanation of the Bible, allegorical interpretation holds no obscure place. The allegorizing expositor frequently meets our view. What then is meant by allegorical interpretation? Who is the allegorizing interpreter? These questions appear to admit of an easy reply, although in reality they are attended with difficulty. Most readers, perhaps, have the impression, that they convey the idea of deficiency or error; but few may be able to point out the precise incorrectness implied.

The words of holy Scripture were intended to convey some definite meaning. Whether they were understood in all cases by the sacred writers themselves, is a question distinct from the

fact, that they were meant to communicate knowledge. To attribute want of purpose to the great Agent under whose influence they were indited, would betray disrespect to his person and disbelief of his wisdom. If then it be assumed, that the language of the Bible was employed to represent certain ideas to the minds of men, the great object of an expositior must be to ascertain such ideas. All his powers should be applied to discover the sense which the terms in question were used to imply. Hence the business of interpretation is simple. It looks for the meaning which the Holy Spirit willed to communicate. When this is found, the task is done; when it is undiscovered, in whole or in part, the work undertaken remains unaccomplished. Perhaps it had been better left unattempted. Not to expound at all, is preferable to a process of misapprehending or distorting the sense.

Now the allegorical interpreter discovers a spiritual in addition to the literal sense. It may be, that certain portions of the Bible were meant to have a primary and secondary meaning-a spiritual over and above an historical significance. Discarding, as we do, the phrase double sense, it is still true, that some passages wear a double aspect; or represent two occurrences so closely allied, that the one suggests and throws light upon the other. Should these two aspects be styled two senses, as they sometimes are, or should they be injuriously dissevered, the interpreter in calling attention to both, cannot be said to allegorize. Rather does he expound properly and justly. He proceeds in the right path, without being open to the charge of erroneous exposition. He may fail to look at them together, or to present them as nothing more than one sense; or he may possibly disregard their designed coincidence; but yet in speaking of a literal and a figurative representation belonging to the same passage, he is not justly liable to the accusation of allegorizing. Happily, the greater part of the Bible does not partake of this twofold character. Plain narrative, for example, must always be taken in its obvious sense, without ulterior reference to spiritual things. But the nature of prophetic diction is different. Its meaning is not so easily exhausted. It is pregnant with a deep significance essentially connected with the sense lying on the surface.

The allegorical interpreter discovers a hidden sense where there is no reason for supposing it to exist. He arbitrarily imposes on the language of scripture, a mystical besides another meaning. He brings forcibly into the sacred text ideas which it was not intended to convey. He spiritualizes, in cases where the literal is the only right meaning. Not contented with the bare and naked literality of the divine record, he penetrates

beneath the surface, to draw up thence recondite treasures of wisdom. In this way a new meaning is supplied by the inquirer, as though it were necessary to bring out the full scope of a history. An additional sense, not patent to common observation, is imposed on the diction of scripture.

Perhaps it may be asked what relation allegorical interpretation bears to typical or secondary interpretation. Inasmuch as there are types in the Old Testament, adumbrating persons and things in the spiritual kingdom of Christ, the latter mode of interpretation is so far correct. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews has clearly shown that the Old Testament economy was expressly adapted by divine wisdom to symbolize the gracious dispensation by which it was displaced. Believing, as we do, that events, individuals, and places, were designed to set forth spiritual truths and to foreshadow coming realities, a sure foundation is laid for spiritual or secondary interpretation. As long as there are types and real allegories in the scriptures, so long must there be such interpretation. What connexion, then, is there between the so called allegorical method and the secondary or typical? The one is not a species of the other. There is no necessary union between them. Rather is the one an unwarrantable and unscriptural extension of the other. It finds allegories where none were intended by the inspired writers themselves. The secondary interpretation has its just boundaries, beyond which it forfeits the claim of correctness, and comes under the appellation allegorical. Thus the one is an abuse of the other.

This mode of proceeding is often characterised as a system of interpretation, although it is seldom conceived of as such by those who adopt it. Rarely do they follow it out with uniform steadiness. Their inquiries are not conducted in that systematic way which implies a steadfast adherence to plan. They are too arbitrary and uncertain to be reckoned the result of deliberation or rule. Yet it is appropriate in others who are supposed to take a calm view of such expositors to describe the kind of interpretation commonly exhibited by the latter as belonging to a certain system, or as part of a plan which might be carried out by the biblical commentator. Although it may not be seen or pursued by its votaries as a regular mode of exposition, yet it is truly a system, capable of full development in its application to all scripture; and he is most honest as well as consistent who adheres to it in every passage, forgetting it neither amid prophecies most deeply spiritual, nor histories of the dryest aspect. The exegetical inquirer who is everywhere on the alert for a mystical meaning-whose morbid appetite never likes to be satisfied with the supposed husks of the divine word, is entitled at least to

the praise of consistency, however culpable he be in the estimation of the enlightened. Enamoured of his favourite scheme, he hesitates not to adduce it on all occasions as possessing superior and sovereign virtues. He uses it as the philosopher's stone to turn every thing into gold.

The mode of interpretation which we have styled allegorical may be traced to various causes, in different individuals, inasmuch as it is in some measure dependent on mental idiosyncrasy. The most prominent of these are the following:

A desire to make the scriptures as full as possible. There are many actuated, doubtless, by the best motives, who wish to put honour upon the Bible in different ways; and one of their expedients is to make it as full of meaning as it can possibly be supposed. The Divine Author, possessed of infinite wisdom, is presumed to have secured a written revelation of His will from failing to become a reflection of His own knowledge. Since therefore the Deity is possessed of all knowledge, it is reckoned highly befitting to infuse a pregnancy of meaning into the communication of His will. Now it is right to assume, that a divine revelation is necessarily worthy of its author-that it exhibits a fullness of wisdom consistent with His perfections. But the riches of sentiment contained in the word are not de

pendent on the caprices of man. Be their extent what it may, they must be obvious in a great degree to the perception of mankind in general, because the Bible was meant to be a book for the people. Neither long-continued study nor erudite research is necessary to bring forth this full storehouse to the view of men, else revelation must have been intended for a class, and that, too, not the most numerous-viz., the cultivated and the learned. The inquiry must always be- what is the true sense of scripture ?-for the true sense is at the same time the fullest sense. Instead of honour being done to the Bible by allegorizing its text, positive dishonour is offered to it; since human skill, as developed in finding several meanings, is tacitly confounded with Divine wisdom. What proceeds from man is virtually metamorphosed into an utterance of God; and the humble reader, whose speculative powers are small, is excluded from acquaintance with the most important and spiritual ideas which are supposed to have proceeded from Deity for the benefit of mankind. Respect is due to the individuals who, prompted by a laudable feeling, desire to do homage to scripture and its great Author; but it remains to be shown, that they are right in offering such homage, through the medium of His will. If it can be proved or made probable, that the Deity wished his revelation to be so treated, they are per