which we used to establish it; whereas, if we might imaginably be deceived on all other points, why not, also, conceivably, on this preliminary one? There is one grand ultimate principle, then, which even science and philosophy assume, as being indispensable to their own existence, the very principle, in fact, which gives them their birth and being,-viz., that nature, rightly interpreted, does not deceive us. But what is nature? only a philosophical term for God in physical action, for the Divine power and wisdom operating according to constant laws, among, upon, and through the creatures he has made; so that for science to assume that nature speaks truth in all her communications to the philosophic eye and ear and touch, is the very same thing as for theology to assume that God speaks truth in all the revelations which he makes to her listening ear, and her interpretative eye, in his authenticated word.

The only apparent difference which we can concede to exist between the two cases, is that while Science proves all the facts and conclusions which she admits, in detail, in succession, one by one as they present themselves at her severe tribunal, Theology, on the other hand, proves all the truths of revelation at once, by one sweeping and comprehensive argument, the argument by which she proves that the revelation itself is authentic. And yet even this apparent difference disappears on a closer inspection, and the analogy we are contending for stands out beautifully complete and perfect; for in assuming the truthfulness of nature, as a primary and ultimate principle, we are, in fact, assuming the truthfulness of all her separate communications, even before we proceed to inquire what these distinct communications are: and in all our subsequent investigations, it is merely a process of interpretation that we pursue-we merely prove that nature makes this or that communication to us, we do not demonstrate that each of the communications made is true. In the successive and endless interrogations,' which we propose to nature, we do not wait to be assured that her successive responses are to be depended upon-we merely listen to hear what her real responses are; and the whole of the reasoning employed in the case goes to prove, not that what she has spoken we may unhesitatingly receive as truth, but that she has without doubt spoken this or that oracle, in point of fact. Now is not this precisely analogous to the theological process by which we elicit one after another the truths of religion? That process simply consists in interrogating' the Bible, and interpreting' its responses. One by one, we listen to the 'lively oracles of God; and having caught their sound and interpreted their holy meaning, we lay up the precious results in our doctrinal system, or, still better, in the sacred ark of our religious faith and hope. We do not prove the truth of each Divine utterance in succession; we have already sufficiently proved that, in proving that all these

utterances together are Divine. It is enough that we evince, by the sure principles of grammar and exegesis, that in each instance we have apprehended the real meaning and interpretation of the voice that speaketh to us from heaven. Theology and science, then, are analogous to each other, not only in the fundamental principle assumed alike by both, that whatever God speaks, either in his word, or in his works, is true, but, also, in the unhesitating application of this principle to every phenomenon, or fact, subsequently observed in either of these grand documents, and in the interpretative process by which every such fact is obtained.

Nor is this striking analogy to be regarded as an accidental one- -it is the result of causes which lie at the very foundation of all human knowledge, both religious and scientific and which infallibly determine the only true principles of human investigation into both worlds, the unseen as well as the seen. For consider our position in reference to the universe in both its grand departments. We have been but recently introduced into it. It is but yesterday that we opened our eyes upon the seen, and turned our thoughts to the unseen; both worlds existed long before we existed, and had received all their laws, and order, and existences-ages (who can tell how many?) before we came upon the stage and began to observe and inquire regarding them. What else, then, CAN we do, if we wish to know the truth respecting either world but be content to take them as we find them-to be mere learners, and to be willing to receive all that is proved to be real, however different it may be from what we would have expected, however contrary it may be to our own self-excogitated conceptions, and however mysterious and incomprehensible it may be to our limited faculties. The universe has its constitution quite independently of us and of our conceptions. We are mere spectators introduced very recently upon the stage of observation, to mark and learn that constitution. For aught we know, or can know, at the outset of our inquiries, its constitution may be after this manner, or it may be after that manner, we cannot tell all that we can legitimately demand, in order to our attaining a right knowledge of that constitution, is competent evidence of what actually exists in either world; and the instant we have obtained that competent evidence, either in a Divine revelation sufficiently authenticated in the one case, or in inductive experience and observation in the other, nothing remains to us, no other alternative is either religiously right or philosophically right, but that we should bow with submission and full conviction to the instructions of these great and authoritative teachers. What is it to yield such unqualified submission to competent evidence, but to bring our ideas into harmony with things as they are, with things as they were long before we were

upon us.

introduced upon the stage, and as they will be, long after we have left the stage again? And what if we refuse thus humbly to learn, what if we foolishly insist that the universe shall be what we conceive it ought to be and must be, not what we are informed by competent evidence that it actually is? Why the universe will still abide in its stable and unshaken realities, while our vain and mad thoughts will perish with us. It is the unavoidable result, then, of our very position in the universe, that the spirit of childlike docility should be the only key of knowledge, the only key that can unlock the treasures of all science, both human and Divine. What exists in either world, what is a reality, either spiritual or material, can only be learned by us, it cannot be excogitated by us. We cannot imprint our independent conceptions upon the universe; the universe must imprint the images of its independent realities In regard to every fact of the spiritual world, our only question can be, 'What does God teach us, by the correct interpretation of his word ?' And in regard to every reality in nature, our only question can be- What does God teach us by accurate observation, and exact experiment ?? God alone is independent of teaching all rational creatures, both angels and men, from the very necessity of their derived being, must be learners, and humble learners too; and the more humble the more rapid and exact. If I could originate an universe, I might legitimately claim to excogitate its order and arrangements from the resources of my own mind; but if I cannot originate an universe, if I can only look at one, or turn my attention to one already originated, then I must be content to be the mere 'minister et interpres' of that universe, I must needs humble myself and discipline myself to learn it as it actually is.

In enumerating the hindrances to the advancement of knowledge, Bacon takes notice of the error, which flows,' to use his own admirable words, 'from too great a reverence and adoration of the mind and understanding of man, by which means men have withdrawn themselves from the contemplation of nature and the observations of experience, bewildered in their own speculations and fancies; but of these noble speculators,--and if I may so speak, intellectualists, who are, notwithstanding, commonly taken for the most sublime and divine philosophers, Heraclitus has spoken thus: "Men," says he, "seek truth in their own little worlds, but not in the great world." For did they not disdain the alphabet of nature, and the primer of the Divine works, they might, perhaps, by steps and degrees, after the knowledge of simple letters and then syllables, come at last to read perfectly the text and volume of the creatures itself; but they, on the contrary, by continual meditation and working of their wit, urge and invocate their own

spirits to divine, and give out fanatical predictions, by which they are deservedly though pleasingly deluded.'*

Happily the day is gone by when this powerful description was applicable to men of science. Under the teaching of this great master, they have long ago learned to reject, as utterly worthless, the 'divination of nature,' and to prefer a single well-ascertained fact to a whole host of fancies and speculations. They are now thoroughly familiar with the proper place and functions of the mind in reference to the study of the material world; and, by long ago ceasing to dictate to nature, and letting themselves down to learn the alphabet, the letters and the syllables of the Divine works, they have amply verified their illustrious instructor's prediction, that they should come at last to read perfectly the text and volume of the creatures. But, unhappily, Bacon's description has not ceased to be applicable to the way in which men seek to acquaint themselves with the truths of spiritual or theological science. In this grandest and most momentous department of all, men still withdraw themselves too much from the contemplation of the word of God, and rely too much upon the power and sufficiency of their own understandings. Men still continue to think that they can divine for themselves what God is, and what his will is, and what the invisible world contains. They still disdain the alphabet of the Scriptures, and think it mean and tedious to spell out the letters and syllables that convey the truthful oracles of Heaven. Men are still urging and invocating their own spirits, more or less, to excogitate a spiritual system of things, instead of opening their minds unreservedly to the entrance of what God has revealed regarding the spiritual system which actually exists, seeking truth in the little worlds of their own understandings and fancies, and not in the great world of God's own revelation. It is this fundamental error which makes many men reject Christianity altogether, and it is the same which makes many others corrupt its doctrines, when they feel that they cannot reasonably reject its credentials. This is the fruitful parent both of infidelity and heresy; and as there was no true science of nature till men were untaught this error in reference to that department of knowledge, so it is only in proportion as men unlearn it in reference to spiritual science that we can look for the progress and triumphs of a pure and uncorrupted theology. It was the eradication of this pernicious'adoration of the mind and understanding of man,' which gave the world a sound philosophy-to the eradication of it we must look for the propagation of a sound faith.

* Advancement of Learning.

IV.

THE PRINCIPLES AND LIMITS OF TYPICAL
INTERPRETATION.*

BEFORE We define the limits of typical interpretation, we must define in what it consists. It is that exposition which not merely explains the grammatical sense of the words, but points out also how the grammatical meaning of these words is indicative of future facts, which form a parallelism with those related.

Typology is a branch of symbolism in general, namely, the prophetical branch. All the arts are symbolical. However, most, of the symbols exhibited by the arts are not prophetic, but historical, or else without any reference to time.

The whole of the religious teaching before the introduction of Christianity, as well among the Gentiles as among the Jews, was symbolical. The various forms of paganism symbolised the highest truths which were then discovered in the natural sciences. Paganism was, therefore, the symbolism of intellect. The Jews were much behind many other nations in scientific knowledge, but, through Divine teaching, they were very far before them in the recognition of the sanctity of God, who was called the Holy One of Israel. The religion taught by Moses contains the symbolism of the highest truth known among the Israelites. But let it be well observed, that it is an historical misconception to look upon the priests of the Mosaical covenant as if they were a national establishment of preachers. There might be prophets among them who taught in their capacity as prophets, but in their sacerdotal capacity they never taught by words, but by symbols. We have no instance on record of their ever having delivered a sermon; and the whole Pentateuch contains no doctrine doctrinally expressed, but merely symbolically. Of course we except here definite precepts, like those of the Decalogue, in which not so much the intellect is taught as the will commanded.

We will not enter here into the question formerly agitated between Spencer and Witsius and their respective adherents, why the Israelites were not taught by sermons, but by the repetition of rites: we merely state here that it was so. Their ritual was their catechism, and contained their articles. And these articles of the Israelites predominantly addressed the will, as the pagan rituals, when esoterically explained to those who were initiated into the mysteries, almost exclusively addressed the understanding, and communicated astronomical discoveries, and physiological facts, without any reference to holiness unto the Lord.

* Read at the Biblico-Philological Institution.