His creatures, whom He wishes to bless with everlasting blessings, but to whom He has denied an entrance to this glorious state. Such a revelation is thoroughly useless; nay, more, there is awful punishment to be visited upon such as obey not His commandments, and why should such punishment be inflicted if we can tell neither what we are to do nor what we are to believe? It is insulting, it is blasphemous to think that God could mock His children so; that He, the Source of language, could not declare His demands in plain terms, such as the simple could understand. There must be, there can be, no mysticism, no uncertainty where our eternal destinies are concerned.

In the second place, besides being simple, God's revelation must be authoritative. Our desires, our preconceived theories on the reasons of things, must be laid aside, if contrary to its teaching. Its voice is final. We can do nothing to alter God's arrangements; His plans will be performed with or in spite of our help; all that He has spoken will be accomplished. His Word ceases to be a light, a guide, a support as soon as we begin to doubt. What can we know of the future? We may speculate, it is true; we may read the recorded history of the past, deduce principles therefrom and apply them to the dim shadowy future, but what dependence can we place upon such guesses? They may turn out true or they may not; but surely it would be madness to risk our destiny upon the chance of such prophesying being fulfilled.

But to speak more particularly, How ought this book to be treated by all who acknowledge its Divine authority? Just as we treat other books, only more carefully, more reverently. It is natural to do so. Had it been the case that the sacred writers use language in a different sense from what the same words would mean, if spoken by them in ordinary conversation, different from what the words mean when found in contemporary records, we should have been warned, and of such a warning (so far as I am aware) there is no trace. No new canon of interpretation is appealed to; hence the ordinary rules applied to all literature in all languages should be applied to this literature also. And as in other works we find passages difficult to comprehend by themselves, so when we find difficulties in Scripture, let us pursue the usual course, viz., to explain the more obscure by that which is clear and simple, the poetic by that which is cold and prosaic, the figurative by the plain and literal. No other system of interpretation is pursued when we deal with any other work, and the Bible carries with it no complex code of signals by which we are warned that in perusing its pages we are to set at defiance every canon of textual interpretation. Luther says that "the Christian should direct his first efforts towards understanding the literal sense (as it is called) of Scripture, which alone is the substance of faith and of theology." Hooker says, "I hold it for a most infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture that when a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst." Alford says, “A canon of interpretation which should be constantly borne in mind is that a figurative sense of words is never admissible except when required by the context." And before any reader has assurance to say, "This cannot be taken literally," he must have overpowering reason for so doing. His explanation must agree with the context, with other expressions used by the same inspired prophet or apostle or evangelist, in

referring to the same or kindred subjects, and with the general tenor of Scripture. We have a right to demand good and sufficient reasons for any and all departures from that meaning which seems to lie on the surface of the passage in question; the meaning, the undoubted meaning, which the passage would bear in any other book.

But, as we are too well aware, there is no such method of treatment followed when dealing with the Bible. Its language is made to mean anything and everything. All sects professing Christianity base their doctrines upon this Book, and all differ from one another. Every Christian theologian accepts it as Divine, builds his religious theories upon its teaching, and the utmost diversity prevails; multiplicity and chaos, instead of unity and kosmos. And all this has clearly arisen from a system of "spiritualising" (as its advocates are pleased to term it) or "allegorising" the Scripture records, a system introduced by Origen into the Christian Church, and perpetuated from then till now with the most disastrous results. Origen tells us plainly his principles in these words "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written;" so he searched for a "hidden sense," which (Mosheim says) "he endeavours to investigate through his commentaries, neglecting and despising for the most part the outward letter; and in this devious path he displays the most ingenious strokes of fancy. though always at the expense of truth, whose Divine simplicity is scarcely discernible through the cobweb veil of allegory." Scripture could thus be made to mean anything, and the disciples of Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno, and indeed "the whole philosophical tribe" (again to quote Mosheim), "could not fail to obtain for their sentiments a place in the Gospel, when it was interpreted by the wanton inventions of fancy, and upon the supposition of a hidden sense, to which it was possible to give all sorts of forms. Hence, all who desired to model Christianity according to their fancy or their favourite system of philosophy, embraced Origen's method of interpretation." We need not wonder that Origen's plan became popular.

Thus far I have been speaking on the general system of interpretation to be pursued when dealing with the Bible; let us now come to prophecy, and, at the outset, let me say that by prophecy I mean "foretelling," the usual, but by no means correct, equivalent of the term. How should we treat prophecies which admittedly refer to the future? I think we cannot be in a position to answer this question until we have seen how God has fulfilled His Word in the past: if He has departed from the strict letter of His Word, He may again depart from it.

God had declared that the Messiah should be born in Bethlehem; that He should be born of a virgin; that He should be a preacher of good tidings; that He should enter Jerusalem upon a colt; that He should be betrayed by one of His familiar friends and deserted by His followers; that He should be despised and rejected by His own nation; that in meekness and silence He should bear suffering and shame; that He should die for the sins of His people a felon's death; that His grave should be made with the rich; that His garments should be parted, and lots cast for His vesture; that He should be raised from the dead without seeing corruption; that He should be the Son of God, the Seed of Abraham, David's Son and David's Lord; these, and many, many more

relating to the incarnation and earthly life of our Lord, have been all fulfilled to the letter; in not one case has there been what is called a "figurative" fulfilment. We rest upon this as upon a sure foundation. From the past we can see how the prophecies of the future must be fulfilled if God's Word is not to return to Him in vain, if it is to prosper in that whereunto He has sent it.

You remember those words of our Lord spoken to His disciples after His resurrection, "All things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses and in the prophets and in the Psalms concerning Me." And you also recall to mind how often our Lord tried to open their understandings, so that they might see that the prophets spoke of the sufferings of Christ and that He must endure these sufferings ere the glory should be manifested. The disciples firmly believed in the certain literal establishment of God's kingdom on this earth, over which their Messiah should reign for ever; and they interpreted figuratively those prophecies which referred to His rejection and death. Modern Christians occupy the reverse position: they believe in the sufferings and humiliation of Christ, and "spiritualise" every prophecy which refers to the glory that should follow, and by following this system (miscalled interpretation), I said Scripture could be twisted to mean anything. Here are some proofs of that statement:

:

Death means life in torment; life, happiness; eternal life, eternal happiness; not to see life, to live for ever in misery; perish, to be preserved for ever; ye shall die, ye cannot die; destroy, to keep in being; fear Him who can destroy both soul and body, fear Him who can destroy the body but not the soul; death cannot praise Thee, the dead can praise Thee; burnt up root and branch, that the things burnt continue burning and are never burnt up; the wages of sin is death, the wages of sin is eternal life in misery; the dead shall be raised, the living shall be brought from heaven or hell; all that are in their graves, all that are in heaven or hell; the Euphrates, Turkey; forty and two weeks, twelve hundred and sixty years; demons, evil persons or diseases; the prince of the power of the air, evil personified; to reign on the earth, to reign in heaven; to inherit the earth, to live in heaven; Christ's abiding for ever, that His kingdom will be temporal; kingdom of heaven, kingdom in heaven; kingdom of this world, kingdom in this world; Canaan, heaven; Jerusalem, the Church; the gathering of God's ancient people from the east and from the west, from the north and from the south, and their settlement in their own land for ever, that Christians will be taken to heaven; under the whole heaven, means in the skies; to ascend up where He was before, to ascend where he never was before; to sit on David's throne, to reign in heaven where David had no throne; David is not ascended into the heavens, David hath ascended into the heavens, but his body is in the grave; to rule over the house of Israel, to reign in the hearts of believers.

Again, from a book entitled, "Spiritual Science: our Patriarch Jacob the Father and the Prophet of Human Science," I extract* the following interpretation (!) of the opening verses of Gen. xxx. :—

"Rachel means artificial Christian learning; Leah, human learning; Jacob, scientific intellect; Bilhah, honour of human ability."

* From a review in Spectator, of April 10th, 1880.

And in speaking of other portions of Scripture, the same authority says:

"Asses mean scientific assumptions; lambs, human spiritual believers; rams, active religious minds; goats, dogmas of artificial religion."

And what disgrace has been showered on the name of religion by foolhardy attempts to date the coming of the Son of God and the Apocalyptic visions of seals and trumpets. Tyso, a Baptist minister, collated and compared no less than thirty-five different expositions, and found a difference. "as to the period of the first seal of upwards of 600 years! and as to that of the sixth, no less than upwards of 1,700 years! the earliest date assigned to the first seal being A.D. 33-and the latest A.D. 657. Again, the earliest date assigned to the sixth seal, A.D. 98 !— latest ditto, A.D. 1806! . . . . . Then, as to the trumpets, Tyso finds the earliest assigned date of the first ditto, to be A.D. 34—and of the latest ditto, A.D. 437! Also, earliest assigned date of seventh trumpet, A.D. 1516-latest do., A.D. 1927 !" "And this," says the Rev. J. C. McCausland (to whose work The Hope of Israel* I am indebted for the above facts), "this is the unanimity resulting from what they call fulfilled prophecy! Truly, this would be to cast doubt upon the Word of God, instead of confirming it." When God fulfils His word, the fulfilment will be unmistakable.

And now, in conclusion, allow me to recapitulate the general argument pursued in this paper. We object to the pernicious system of allegorizing:-(1) Because each interpreter is the sole judge of the "hidden sense,' and yet God is held responsible. (2) Because the individual desires and predilections do not form a sufficient basis upon which to build a theory regarding the purposes of God. (3) Because if God does not mean what He says-if He does not speak to man in man's language, as man to man-the revelation is useless. (4) Because it is absurd to suppose, without any authority, that the Greek of the New Testament is a language entirely different from the Greek of the early decades of the Christian era. (5) Because it is opposed to the genius of language, and would force us to conclude that God will not fulfil His Word as He has done. (6) Because the upholders of that system never dare to apply their canon of interpretation to any other work in classic literature. (7) Because the upholders of that system apply their canon of interpretation to no part of Revelation except Prophecy. (8) Because the history of the system is against it: it originated with the temptation in Eden, and it has wrought destruction from that time till now.

The interpretation for which you and I contend is based on the soundest principles, and makes the strongest appeal to our common sense. We do not exercise ourselves so much with the question, What do the sacred writers mean, as with another question, What do the sacred writers SAY; in fact, as has often been said, we do not interpret the Bible; we allow the Bible to interpret itself. And, for doing this, for trusting in the veracity of God's Word, we receive little but sneers; the floodgates of University eloquence are opened upon us; doubts of our sanity are entertained and humorously expressed; gentle hints regarding "mental hallucination," and fierce protests against

*Dublin: Hodges, Smith & Co. 1860. p. 292.

"rigid literalism," which is, according to Canon Farrar and others, "absolutely fatal to any true knowledge of Scripture." Well, I trust we shall be able to bear these taunts; they are not arguments, though to the unthinking they may seem destructive to our peculiar notions. Let us have patience; we are in a minority. But ere long God will manifest Himself to an astonished world as the covenant-keeping Jehovah, who will accomplish ALL that He has spoken by the mouth of ALL His holy prophets since the world began. Kirkcaldy, N.B.

J. MILL.

THE VEILED BRIDE.

"Shall not make haste." "Shall not be in a panic."-(Gen. xxiv. 63-67; Isa. xxviii. 16.) (last part).

VEILED, the Future comes; refusing

VEILE

To be seen, like Isaac's bride,

Whom the lonely man met, musing

In the fields at eventide.

Round him, o'er the darkening waste,
Deeper shades of evening fall;
And, behind him, in the Past,
Mother Sarah's funeral.

Mother Sarah being dead,

Here comes his veiled destiny;
Veiled Rebecca he must wed,
Whatsoe'er her features be.

On he walks, in silent prayer;

Bids the veiled Rebecca hail;
Doubting not she will prove fair,

When at length she lifts the veil.

When the veil is dropped aside,—
Dropped in Mother Sarah's tent;
Lo! she is right fair, this bride,

Whom his loving God hath sent.

So thou, walking 'twixt the two-
"Twixt the Past with pleasures dead;
And the Future, veiled from view,
That veiled Future thou must wed.

Walk like Isaac, praying God;
Walk by faith, and not by sight;
Then, though darker grows the road,
Doubt not; all will yet come right.