attempts at wit and ribaldry-such satirical flings as these! Shall the sun be literally turned into darkness, and the moon into blood? Shall such wonders occur in Heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath, as literal blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke? Do we not read of the stars falling from Heaven, of a beast with seven heads and ten horns, of a little horn behind the ten, having a mouth speaking blasphemy; and of a certain lady that had her seat upon seven mountains? Must not all these, and such like monstrous and incredible things, the spiritualist asks, be spiritually understood? Who can be so weak and foolish as to understand them literally? Such things being evidently figurative, he concluded that the spiritual interpretation is and must be the only true system, and consequently that all who advocate the literal only betray their own weakness.

Such sophistry almost destroys the respect we wish to entertain for the men that employ it. Because we advocate the literal verity of the events or things predicted, interpreting the language of prophecy accord ing to the grammatical or rhetorical rules applicable to its particular character, it does not therefore follow, that every metaphor and symbol, or trope of speech, must be stripped of all its ornament, and we be charged with absurdly maintaining, either directly or by fair implication, that when a man is called a lion he is a lion indeed, or when a woman is said to have appeared in heaven clothed with the sun, having the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars, there ever, literally or in reality, was such a thing. It is disingenuous, yea, worse than puerile, to endeavor to excite odium against, or to pour ridicule upon, the literal interpretation of such sophistry. For we remark

II. THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION

CAREFULLY SEARCHES FOR THE GREAT AND LEADING THEME OF PROPHECY, WHICH GIVES SHAPE, CHARACTER, AND IMPORT, TO THE ENTIRE SYSTEM, AND APPLYING TO THEM THE RULES OF PHILOSOPHICAL AND BIBLICAL EXEGESIS, THE PRINCIPLES OF GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRE

TATION, DETERMINES WHETHER THEY ARE ΤΟ BE INTERPRETED LITERALLY OR ALLEGORICALLY.

Admitting the existence of tropes, or figures of speech, in the different predictions, the literal interpreter, however, assumes no general notion or preconceived opinion about the nature of the thing, for the interpretation, in any case, of the language of a prophecy, until its import has been established by the ordinary rules of exegesis.

It is true, that some ignorant sectaries and wild fanatics, such as the Mormons, and a certain class of perfectionists, who adopt the views of a Mr. Beman, on the subject of the kingdom of Heaven, and others of kindred ignorance and error, insist upon every expression being taken literally, without any reference whatever to any tropes of speech, so that when God is called a rock and Christ a lamb, and Christians sheep, they are not to be understood as metaphorically, but really such-a pretence so utterly absurd and insolently ignorant, as to merit nothing but pity for the weakness, or contempt for the nonsense of those that make it. The literal interpretation, for which we contend, knows no alliance with such absurdity; and they who object to it, as identical with such nonsense, only display their own ignorance or malice.

To this, perhaps, it will be objected; where then is the difference between the literal and spiritual interpretation? If the literalist admits the existence of

figurative expressions in prophecy, and the spiritualist admits the literal character of many predictions, wherein do they differ? Do they not after all substantially come to the same thing? To this we reply, that they differ as greatly in their mode of interpreting as in their results. The spiritualist, for example, assumes that THE COMING AND kingdom of chrisT are things which are not and cannot be literally meant and understood, but wholly figurative representations of something spiritual. By means of this assumption, every expression inconsistent with his spiritual idea of the nature of Christ's coming and kingdom, also becomes figurative, and his whole interpretation of the prophecies and exposition of the Scriptures, assumes a correspondent. spiritual hue or character. His assumed or preconceived notion of the nature of the things, is the colored glass or lens through which he reads the Sacred Scriptures. The literalist denies all such assumptions, and calls for proof, subjecting the language of the prophets, on these points, to the most careful investigation by means of philological and rhetorical tests and rules. The spiritualist, however, does not in the first instance, by the application of philological and rhetorical tests and rules, determine whether these terms, THE COMING AND KINGDOM OF CHRIST, are, or are not, literally to be understood; nor does he undertake to prove either from Scripture or from any other source, that his assumed notion or opinion of the nature of the things is correct. That must not be disputed. Here, then, is one essential difference between them.

These expressions obviously are the key-note to the entire system of prophecy. If they are literal, at once they give the pitch, or help us to fix the meaning of many predictions, and to judge when other expressions

used by the prophets, are metaphorical or literal. If they are spiritual, in the same way they give tone to the entire language of prophecy, and shape its meaning accordingly. It is not our design at present philologically or grammatically, to settle the meaning of these terms. That must be done in another place. Our object here is merely to unfold the principles by which the literalist proceeds in his investigation of the language of the prophets.

Here, perhaps, it will be objected, how is it possible to settle this difference between the two systems, and to determine whether these expressions are figurative, or whether they are not. We reply, as we have already stated, that recourse must be had to the ordinary and well-established rules of rhetoric. How, we ask, do you tell when another uses metaphors and figures of speech, or when he speaks according to the plain alphabetical import of his language? Although the reader may be just as ignorant as a little child of the rules of rhetoric, yet he finds no difficulty, nor does the child. According to the established laws of human thought, on which those rules are founded, the meaning is at once perceived. The import of the metaphor at once appears when you call a man a lion to denote his strength and magnanimity, or a puppy to denote his meanness, impertinence, and insignificance; or when you compliment a lady by telling her she has a rosy face and a snowy skin.

We are not concerned to quote the rules of rhetoric applicable to tropical words; but it may be proper to remark, that the evidence of our senses and that of intuition and of consciousness, which we all have in common, enables us, whether children or adults, at once, as the case may be, to perceive whether the thing asserted be literally or figuratively spoken. If

literally taken, as when we call a man a lion or an ass, we see it would contradict the evidence of our senses or involve an absurdity. At once, therefore, we apprehend the speaker's design to denote some resemblance of properties, and not identity of substance. No one ever dreams of interpreting language literally, when it is directly contradictory of the evidence of his senses at the time, or his consciousness, or any intuitive truth.

There is nothing in the idea of Christ's visible coming, and of the establishment of a kingdom on the earth, with a visible administration adapted to its elevated nature and designs, at all contradictory of any evidence of sense or of consciousness, or inconsistent with any intuitive truth. Yet is it manifest, that if the literal idea be esteemed absurd, and the notion of his coming and kingdom as mere spiritual matters be adopted, there is much in the language of the prophets that must be accounted figurative, which would otherwise be plain enough literally understood. To the allegorical or figurative import of these words the literalist objects, affirming that the only correct philological and biblical interpretation requires them to be understood literally, and consequently, that the general import of the prophecies must be determined accordingly.

III. THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION REQUIRES A CAREFUL ATTENTION TO THE DIFFERENT STYLES OF PROPHETICAL LANGUAGE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING THE APPROPRIATE RULES BY WHICH TO ASCERTAIN THEIR IMPORT.

No one can long turn his attention to this subject without discovering that there are various styles of speech employed in the prophetical Scriptures, which