mitted, and in all probability he would have greatly mollified the incongruities in his work, which now abound to such a degree, that any one, who reads him through carefully, finds himself at length much more prone to be surprised and astonished, than to become offended.

It would be entirely out of place, for me here to examine in detail the various positions of his book. A review extended to great length, or even a little volume, would be required in order to accomplish this. All which I can now do, or pretend to do, must be in accordance with the plan of the preceding pages, that is, to give a few HINTS.

It has not been my lot to have any considerable personal acquaintance with Mr. Duffield.* But I have always heard him spoken of, by my brethren in the ministry, as a man of a kind and gentle spirit, uniting the Christian and the gentleman. It was matter of surprise to me, therefore, when I found him speaking of those who hesitate about devoting their time to the study of what they deem to be obscure prophecies, as "having reason to fear, that the charge and censure of the Saviour for hypocrisy may be applicable" to them, and intimating that "they are not in earnest about heavenly things," p. 23. He does not mean here to characterize mere scoffers at all divine truth, but he means such of his brethren as do not agree with him, in zeal for the study of what they deem prophecy too difficult for them to understand. Still, he must doubtless be aware, that many an honest and excellent minister actually entertains such an opinion, in respect to the difficulty in question; and in many a case, too, the opinion

* It was not until I had written nearly the whole of the remarks which follow, that I was advertised, through the medium of a friend, that the title of D. D. had been recently bestowed on the author of the book under review. I had every where designated him by the usual and familiar appellation, Mr. D.; and as he has not given to himself, in the title-page of his book, the additional appellation of D. D., I have thought it best, in reviewing my remarks, to let the usual designation remain. I advert to this subject only to show Mr. D. and his friends, that it is no want of courtesy in me, which induces me to withhold his new title. As he has not made use of it in his book, I deemed it probable that he did not care to receive the proffered honor, and therefore would not wish to have others treat him as if he were jealous of his rights in this respect. The matter would not be worth adverting to, did I not wish to avoid even the appearance of treating Mr. D. with incivility. Nothing could be further from my intention.

is well grounded, because the person who entertains it, has neither time nor means for pursuing the study requisite to gain the knowledge which Mr. D. insists upon.

Again, on p. 71, he speaks of those "who neglect the study of the prophecies," as being "just as incredulous and unprepared to meet him [the Messiah] at his second coming in glory, to establish his kingdom on earth, as they [the Jews] were at his first" [coming]. Nay, "to the mass of Christian ministers and professors, the coming of Jesus Christ in glory . . . will continue to prove as great a stumbling-block as his coming in humiliation and sorrow, for suffering and death, did to the learned doctors of the Sanhedrim, and to the majority of the Jewish nation,” p. 71. Again, on p. 265 he says, that the churches of this country seem to be asleep on this subject," [the personal coming and reign of Christ]; and he represents the hope and expectation of converting the world by the usual means of grace, as a fatal and dangerous sentiment, and a false and unreasonable and unphilosophical [?] hope."

66

66

Throughout the work are here and there interspersed sentiments of a similar nature. At one time the opponents of his views are negligent of the Scriptures; at another, they are prejudiced, obstinate, bent upon peculiar hypotheses, and swayed by their own system; then, again, they are unwilling to follow the simple principles of interpretation; and they are indifferent about the glories of Christ and the saints. Moreover, some of them are led away by Platonic and other philosophy; and others, (particularly the author of Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy, pp. 395, 409), are led away by German neology.

In respect to being misled by Platonism and German neology, whoever may chance to be involved in this charge, may equitably, as I should imagine, make an appeal, after this first trial and sentence, to another tribunal than that of Mr. Duffield. It is quite possible, however, as I can somewhat readily believe, that they may not deem the sentence, passed on them by him, to be of import so urgent and hazardous as to demand an appeal. Be this as it may, Mr. D. himself, at all adventures, whatever his other faults may be, will doubtless stand acquitted, in the judgment of every intelligent reader, and freed from any possible charge, of being led away either by Plato or by the Germans.

It is enough merely to have hinted this topic. I pass to other considerations; remarking only, that if Mr. D. expects "the mass of Christian ministers and professors" to give him the most kindly and patient hearing, (and truly he needs a hearing both kind and patient), it is not the wisest policy to bespeak that hearing, by blows somewhat rude and violent upon the very ears which are summoned to listen.

His first essay, after some remarks on the duty of studying the prophecies, is to establish hermeneutical principles; from the application of which he expects to deduce his whole theory in respect to times future. His grand position is, that all prophecy is to be LITERALLY interpreted. By literal he means, (as he avers, p. 34), “that system which assumes the literality, or historical reality, of the events predicted." More than sixty pages are occupied with illustrating and establishing this position. Often, in reading them, I have been constrained to stop and inquire: Does the author mean really to assert, then, that all the language of prophecy is to be literally interpreted? Most of his remarks led me, against my will, to think that such must eventually be his position. More than once I began seriously to ask: And has it come to this, now, that we are to make a beginning with the very first of all the prophecies in the Bible, and find out by a literal interpretation what is the meaning of the prediction: "The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head?”

From this dilemma, however, after a long suspense, and not a little of doubt about the real meaning of the author, we are at length somewhat relieved, by two chapters on figurative, symbolical, and typical language. Here we are at last informed, that the prophecies must be interpreted by the ordinary rules applicable to language of a similar nature as elsewhere employed. In the sequel (p. 106 seq.) he informs us, that the prophecies exhibit alphabetical, tropical, and symbolical language; and finally, in the way of appendix to this topic (p. 136), we are told that "there is a fourth style of language... viz. that of TYPES." So far as the author goes correctly in the way of explaining any of these varieties in style, he produces nothing but what is to be found in the usual principles of hermeneutics. But it must be confessed, still, that he has here produced, in addition to these, some things which he may rightfully claim as his own. What sort of language the alphabetical is, in distinction from and

contrasted with the other kinds named by him, I have not been able to make out by any thing which he has said. We may easily distinguish between language alphabetical and hieroglyphical; but one would be put to serious difficulty, in proving that tropical lauguage is not alphabetical; or that symbolical or typical language (to assume the author's nomenclature) is not alphabetical. In respect to these last two designations, however, we have another remark to make, which is, that types are not language, but things; symbol is not lanlanguage, but thing. Passages which present us with types or symbols, are, for the most part, to be interpreted, (so far as the mere words are concerned), in a literal way; e. g. Ex. XII., which contains an account of the institution of the passover-which passover is a type of the death of Christ. Yet our author, while he says many things which are true and obvious, in respect to trope, and symbol, and type, has also presented many incongruities of representation, through failure "to distinguish the things that differ." We may allow a writer to speak of typical language and symbolical language, in case he tells us what he means thereby, on the ground that brevity may excuse a little inaccuracy in modes. of expression. But a writer who makes so much to depend on the establishment of specific principles of interpretation, as Mr. D. does, or at least would seem to do, must be held to perspicuity and accuracy in the didactic parts of his book.

About 150 pages of the work before us are occupied with discussion respecting these matters. According to my apprehension, all that is said might have been more plainly and profitably comprised within the compass of twenty-five pages.

But before we proceed to examine the main body of the work, a few remarks should be made on the statement of Mr. D.'s great fundamental principle, on which every thing in his book turns and depends, viz. that the prophecies are to be LITERALLY interpreted; and that by literal he means, that system of interpretation "which assumes the LITERALITY or HISTORICAL REALITY of the events predicted," p. 34.

Lest the word literality should startle his readers, he adds the epexegetical clause designed to be its exponent or equivalent, viz. HISTORICAL REALITY. We will, for the moment, accept the explanation which he gives, for the sake of inquiring into the accuracy of this fundamental position.

A historic reality is something, or (as we may say) any thing,

which takes place, or has an actual existence, in distinction from any thing which is merely supposed or imaginary. Now there are as many realities in the world of mind, as of mat

ter.

66

Nay, if we include within the circle of the world of mind, the Divine Being and angelic intelligencies, we may well say, that there are more historic realities belonging to the world of mind, than to the world of matter; there are more, and more important things, historical realities, connected with the invisible world, than with the visible one. How shall we show then, that when a spiritual exegesis (as the author names it) is given to any particular passage of Scripture, that it does not as truly present us with a historical reality, as when we assign to it a meaning which has relation to external and visible occurrencies? It is easy to produce a familiar and undeniable example. Jesus declared to Nicodemus, that Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Now if the explanation which Mr. D. gives of his great principle is correct, we are not to give this a spiritual meaning, but a literal one. He cannot take refuge here in any thing which he says about tropes, or symbols. There must be a historical reality (in his sense of the phrase) in these words; and this reality is one, according to the whole subsequent tenor of his book, which is of a visible and sensible nature. This is in reality a correct exposition and application of his principle; and if so, and if (as is truly the case) this leads to absurdity, then there is not the weight of a grain of sand in what he brings forward to support the idea of a visible, terrestrial, future kingdom of Christ. The simple question between us and him is, not whether matter of fact or historical reality is designated by the prophecies, but whether the reality belongs to the world of matter or of mind. We say, to the latter; he says, to the former, if not exclusively, yet primarily and principally. Just the same question, be it remembered, comes up in respect to the words of Jesus to Nicodemus. The principle of Mr. D.'s interpretation, which he applies to prophecies, would make Nicodemus altogether in the right, nay a sagacious and straight-forward exegete, when he asked the question: "Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" How now, on the ground of a visible historic reality being necessarily implied, are we going to prove that this is not the natural, yea, the necessary meaning of the words of the Saviour? We could not prove it. And