and of the mind of the preacher. It was with pain that I listened, a short time since, to his explanation of a portion of the 69th Psalm, which, in its internal sense, treats of the Lord's temptations by the infernal hosts, which he sustained and overcame for human salvation. The tongue of the preacher is "as the pen of a ready writer." His tone as monotonous as an alarum. He doubtless speaks from memory, and not from deep thought, and sober reflection. He said that he did not believe the Psalm was written by David, but by some one who had returned from the Babylonish captivity, and that the whole was descriptive of their sufferings during their bondage, and nothing more. Further; that he was aware that some persons thought they saw another meaning in some parts of the Psalm: he did not. "Some imagined that several parts related to Christ: he did not." And as to the 21st verse, They gave me also gall to eat; and when I was thirsty they gave me vinegar to drink;" he did not think it was written in allusion to the circumstance that transpired at the crucifixion. It is true (he continued) that it is quoted in the Gospels, but that was merely because the words were appropriate to the circumstance which then took place. Besides, (he added,) "he could not think that the Psalm, and especially that verse, related to Christ, because the person to whom it did relate, uttered horrible imprecations upon his enemies, in the subsequent verses; which was not the mind of Christ, who told us to love our enemies, and who prayed on the cross for his murderers." He finally summed up the whole with a kind of invective against any spiritual meaning in any part of the Bible: and going back to Solomon's Temple, he said in a bold tone of defiance and of self assurance, “What is it to me that some fancy a symbolical or other meaning in the account of its building. What care I about its adornings, its lamps, its altar, its pillars, &c.; this is all past, and we have sufficient in other portions as a guide for the Christian." Thus men go wrong with an ingenious skill; Bend the straight rule to their own crooked will; Thus, with some preachers, the Old Testament writings seem to be altogether superfluous; and with regard to the New Testament writings, they prefer the Epistles to the Gospels, which contain the very words of the Lord Himself, and whose words are "spirit and life." Now, we may easily perceive that this minister may be taken as the type of a numerous class of Bible Advocates, and of popular preachers His place of worship is crowded to overflowing; and there it is that you may hear "the popular harangue." Like a clever tactician, he manages to rivet the gaze of his unthinking audience; most of whom would be completely chloroformed if they were presented with a few spiritual truths, and more rational definitions. Truly, crowded churches are no proof of spiritual progression; but may possibly afford another proof, among the many, that the maximum of numbers may embody the minimum of intellect and understanding. Let us, however, turn from the darkness of the present times, and glance at the earlier history of the Bible, and a few of the opinions of its advocates at that period. "Difficulties" did, indeed, exist, and differences of opinion, among the early Christian writers, on some portions of the Bible, especially on the first chapters of Genesis. But they were not supine: they tried to solve them. They did not make mysteries from the Scriptures, like that which was invented subsequently at the Council of Nice (A.D. 325), from which conclave issued a Tripersonal Trinity: and no Alexander has been able to cut the knot of Gordius, nor ingenious enough to unravel it, to this day. The early Christian writers, as well as the Jewish writers of those times, saw the insuperable difficulties consequent on their understanding the first chapters of Genesis literally, and they attempted another meaning, which some called allegorical. Origen, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, St. Ambrose, and others, were favourable to this mode of interpretation. Those Bible advocates of the present day, who adhere so tenaciously to the literal sense alone, need not start at the mention of the term allegory, as applied to some parts of the Old Testament writings, until they have something better to offer. The term simply means, a discourse which has another meaning than that which is directly expressed. It is a personification of principles, virtues, and passions. In the Epistolary writings, it will be found that an allegorical sense is applied to a portion of the Old Testament narrative. The apostle Paul, referring to the account of Abraham and his two wives, the bond-woman and the free-woman, and their two sons, says that "these things are an allegory," which occupy the greater part of the chapter. (Compare Gen. xxi. 6-21, with Gal. iv. 22, to the end.) Such persons cannot, therefore, well complain of Philo*, a learned Jew, having done the same as regards the account of the fall. In the allegorical meaning which he gives, there are close approximations to the true spiritual sense. • Philo Judæus lived about A.D. 40. He was a learned man, and was well acquainted with the language and philosophy of the Greeks. NO. XXXII.-VOL. III. 23 He says "that it were impious to imagine that the garden of Eden was a real garden, and planted with real trees by the hand of God: but that by the garden and its trees were meant a portion of His own Divine Wisdom, or a disposition to virtue implanted in the human soul. It is said to be planted in Eden, which means, in delight; for nothing is so delightful as genuine virtue. The trees of this paradise are the various particular virtues, called office or duties of life. The four streams flowing out of Eden, are the four cardinal virtues, prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice. Man is desired to eat of the fruit of all the trees of paradise, because he must practise all the virtues. He is forbidden to taste of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because he must not abandon himself to vice, the evil of which is only known by its opposition to virtue. The death threatened in case of disobedience, is that of the soul. Adam is the intellectual part of man; Heva the sensual part; the serpent is unlawful pleasure, which, by first winning over the sensual part, drags the intellectual after it. Hence, God declared it to be more execrable than all beasts; that is, all the affections of the mind; as being the source from which they spring, and, without which, they probably would not exist. Crawling on the belly, is wallowing in sensuality; eating the dust, is feeding the mind with terrestrial objects; and the enmity between the serpent and the woman, is the incompatibility of vicious voluptousness with genuine sensuous pleasure. The sorrow of conception and child-birth, are the stings of unlawful gratification; and her subordination to her husband, is a subjection of the sensual part to the intellectual. But when this intellectual husband deviates from reason, and listens easily to the voice of his sensual wife, and eats the forbidden fruit which she presents to him; that is, consents to the evil suggested by her; then the earth, that is, all his carnal actions, are reprehensible and accursed, and produce nothing but the thorns and thistles of pungent remorse, and troublesome uneasiness, all the days of his life."* Here it may not be out of place to give a few brief extracts from the Writings of Swedenborg. "By the garden of Eden, is meant the wisdom of the man of the Most Ancient Church; by the tree of life, the Lord in man, and man in the Lord; and by the tree of knowledge of good and evil, man not in the Lord, but in his own proprium, or selfhood. By eating of this tree, is meant the appropriation of evil. That the garden of Eden signifies intelligence and wisdom, may appear from these passages: 'With thy wisdom and thine intelligence thou hast gotten thee riches; thou hast been in Eden, the garden of God (Ez. xxviii. 4-12; see also Ez. xxxi. 3, 8, 9; Rev. ii. 7; T.C.R. n. 467). "By the four streams are denoted different kinds of intelligence" (A. C. n. 107). "To eat of every tree, is to know and understand from perception what is good and true” (Ibid, n. 125). "A desire to investigate the mysteries of faith by means of the senses and of science, was not Even such a mode of interpretation as this, from a Jew, is preferable to those generally given by Christian defenders of the Bible, which cannot be satisfactory to the sincere inquirer after the truth. Other similar specimens could be adduced from the early writers of the Christian Church; but this will suffice for the present purpose. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, in Africa, (see T. C. R., 840,) says, that "in his days, among the various opinions which had been held on the above subjects, there were three prevalent ones; viz., that of those who believed the literal sense only; that of those who advocated a purely spiritual meaning; and that of those who admitted both; to which he willingly gave his assent.” Surely, all bishops should be sincere and consistent advocates of the Bible, and more especially so now that the interior sense, or spiritual meaning of the Holy Word is made known as a key to open its rich treasures. Our modern bishops and clergy should avail themselves of this means to meet all its opponents, and to enlighten the Church and the world. They would find it to be the grand panacea and specific, with which to cure the moral diseases and erroneous notions of Puseyism and Confessionalism, and Tractarianism, and Jesuitism, and Tripersonalism, and Deism, as well as many other isms which now infest the Christian churches, and prey upon the very vitals of pure religion. That neither the bishops nor the subordinate clergy have ever heard of such a key, cannot for a moment be credited. But, O! the craft of Demetrius, they think, would be in danger: "Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth." Having referred to bishops, and to the early chapters of Genesis, as well as the manner in which some of the early writers understood them, I cannot resist this opportunity of quoting the words of a more modern bishop, in reference to Noah's ark, which he compares to the Church,— the English Church, to which he belonged. Warburton, in writing to his intimate friend, Dr. Hurd, afterwards Bishop of Worcester, says, "The Church, like the Ark of Noah, is only the cause of the fall or decline of the Most Ancient Church, but it is also the cause of the fall or decline of every church; for hence came not only false opinions, but also evils of life" (Ibid n. 127). "The sensual things in man, the most ancient people called serpents; because, as serpents live close to the earth, so sensual things are closely connected with the body” (Ibid. n. 195). "By man (vir) the rational principle in man is signified, or one who is wise and intelligent” (Ibid. n. 158, 265). "By eating dust all the days of his life, is signified, that the sensual principle was. reduced to such a state, that it could feed only on what was corporeal and terrestrial, and had, consequently, become infernal. . . . . The serpent signifies evil of every kind and particularly self-love" (A.C. n. 249, 251). worth saving: not for the sake of the unclean beasts and vermin that almost filled it, and probably made most noise and clamour in it; but for the little corner of rationality, that was as much distressed by the stink within, as by the tempest without." Such is Warburton's opinion of his own Church in his day; and his description reminds us of the words of the prophet, "darkness covereth the earth" (or church) "and gross darkness the people." What his ideas were of the deluge, and the ark, whether to be understood literally or spiritually, does not appear; certainly there is no spirituality in his comparison. If we are to judge from another of his allusions to it, he held the account in very light estimation: Happy to fill Religion's vacant place With hollow form, and gesture, and grimace. And let it be remembered, that this divine, was the author of "The Divine Legation of Moses." His friend, Dr. Hurd, had, in reply, made some allusion to the above comparison between the Ark and the Church; whether in approval or not, does not transpire. We hope not. The Bishop writes again as follows: "You mention Noah's ark. I really forget what I said of it. But I suppose I compared it to the Church, as many grave divines have done before me. The Rabbins make the giant Gog or Magog contemporary with Noah, and convinced by his preaching. So that he was disposed to take the benefit of the ark. But here lay the distress : it by no means suited his dimensions. Therefore, as he could not enter in, he contented himself to ride upon it astride. And though you must suppose, that, in that stormy weather, he was more than half-boots over, he kept his seat, and dismounted safely, when the ark landed on Mount Ararat. Image now to yourself this illustrious cavalier mounted on his hackney; and see if it does not bring before you the Church, bestrid by some lumpish minister of state, who turns and winds it at his pleasure. The only difference is, that Gog believed the preacher of righteousness and religion." Now, this erudite divine, before replying to his friend's remarks, had an opportunity of re-considering what he had written. He might have turned to the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. xi. 7, or to the First Epistle of Peter, chap. iii. 18, to the end, where he would have found that Peter gives to it a figurative sense. Or, better still, he might have referred to Matt. xxiv. 36-39, where he would have found that our Lord foretold the coming state of the Christian Church, (inclusive of the one to which he belonged,) that the Church would in time resemble that of the one which destroyed itself, which destruction |