of this book from chapter xl. to the end, treats, in its ulterior and most important sense, of the Lord's advent upon earth, and of the establishment by Him of a spiritual kingdom. This is what the doctor calls "the evangelical sense of the prophecy," which he says, "is so apparent, and stands forth in so strong a light, that some interpreters cannot see that it has any other; and will not allow the prophecy to have any relation at all to the return from the captivity of Babylon." But he gives it as his own opinion, "that the return of the Jews from Babylon is the first, though not the principal thing in the prophet's view." And after showing that natural or outward events, as recorded in the literal sense, were referred to by the prophet, he concludes with these words: "If the literal sense of this prophecy, as above explained, cannot be questioned, much less, surely, can the spiritual; which I think is allowed on all hands, even by Grotius himself. [And] if both are to be admitted, here is a plain example of the mystical allegory, or double sense, as it is commonly called of prophecy; which the sacred writers of the New Testament clearly suppose, and according to which they frequently frame their interpretations of the Old Testament."

Another eminent writer, and profound biblical scholar, the Rev. W. Jones, was clearly of the opinion that all the miracles of our Lord were representative of certain internal, spiritual operations performed in the mind or spirit of man. "All his miracles," he says, "were undoubtedly so many testimonies that He was sent from God but they were much more than this, for they were all of such a kind, and attended with such circumstances, as give us an insight into the spiritual state of man and the great work of his salvation." (W. Jones' Works, vol. iii., p. 326-7.)

We will quote the language of but one other writer in proof of the fact, that, among modern biblical commentators, there has existed an opinion that the Sacred Scriptures do contain some other meaning than that which is conveyed by the strict letter of the text. Bishop Warburton, in his Divine Legation, (b. iv., § 4,) says:

"The Old Asiatic style, so highly figurative, seems, by what we find of its remains in the prophetic language of the Sacred Writings, to have been evidently fashioned to the mode of ancient hieroglyphics, both curiologic and tropical;-of the second kind, which answers to the tropical hieroglyphic, is the calling empires, kings, and nobles, by the names of the heavenly luminaries, the sun, moon, and stars; their temporary disasters, or entire overthrow, by eclipses and extinctions; the destruction of the nobility, by stars falling from the firmament; hostile invasions, by thunder and tempestuous winds; the leaders of armies, conquerors. and founders of empires, by lions, bears, leopards, goats, or high trees. In a word, the prophetic style seems to be a speaking hieroglyphic."

These few extracts from the writings of some of the most distinguished biblical scholars of modern times. may suffice to show, that there has been in the first Christian Church a perception and acknowledgment of something besides the mere literal sense, in some parts of the Word at least. All modern commentators, however, have not been of this opinion. The learned Dr. Mosheim, for example, lays it down as a "golden rule," that the Scriptures contain but one sense, which is that of the letter. And probably theologians in the prevailing Church are more generally principled in this doctrine of Dr. Moshiem at the present day, than at any former period. For it is a remarkable fact, that as we go back in the history of the Church towards the time of the primitive Christians, we find the opinion that the Word does contain an internal sense, becoming more and more prevalent in the Church the nearer we approach to that early period. Any one may satisfy himself upon this point, who will consult the best writers on Ecclesiastical History.

And now-passing by the writers upon theology at subsequent periods let us see what opinion the primitive Christians entertained on this subject, according to that eminent writer of Ecclesiastical History, Dr. Mosheim. Speaking of the manner of interpreting Scripture in the first century, this learned author says:

"Those who performed the office of interpreters, studied above all things plainness and perspicuity. At the same time it must be acknowledged, that, even in this century, several Christians adopted that absurd and corrupt custom, used among the Jews, of darkening the plain words of the Holy Scriptures by insipid and forced allegories, and of drawing them violently from their proper and natural signification, in order to extort from them certain mysterious and hidden significations. For a proof of this, we need go no farther than the epistle of Barnabas, which is yet extant." (Cent. I. part 2, chap. iii. § 2.)

Again this author mentions among the illustrious writers of the second century, and men most renowned for their piety and erudition, the names of Pantænus, Clemens the Alexandrian, Tatian, Justin Martyr, and Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch. And concerning these distinguished luminaries in the Church, he says: "They all attributed a double sense to the words of Scripture, the one obvious and literal, the other hidden and mysterious, which lay concealed, as it were, under the veil of the outward letter. The former they treated with the utmost neglect, and turned the whole force of their genius and application to unfold the latter." (Cent. II. part 2, chap. iii. § 4, 5.)

Among the Christian fathers of the third century, the name of Origen stands pre-eminent. Speaking of "the principal writers that distinguished themselves in it [the third century] by their learned and pious productions," Dr. Mosheim says: "The most eminent of these, whether we consider the extent of his fame or the multiplicity of his labors, was Origen, presbyter and catechist of Alexandria, a man of vast and uncommon abilities, and the greatest luminary of the Christian world that this age exhibited to view. His virtues and his labors deserve the admiration of all ages; and his name will be transmitted with honor through the annals of time as long as learning and genius shall be esteemed among men." (Cent. III. part 2, chap. ii. § 7.)

Such is the eulogistic language which our historian employs in speaking of Origen. And he tells us in an

other chapter that this illustrious man maintained and taught that the principal wisdom of God's Word lies within or above the letter. To cite his own language:

"He [Origen] alleged, that the words of Scripture were, in many places, absolutely void of sense; and that though in others there were, indeed, certain notions conveyed under the outward terms according to their literal force and import, yet it was not in these that the true meaning of the sacred writers was to be sought, but in a mysterious and hidden sense arising from the nature of the things themselves. This hidden sense he endeavors to investigate throughout his commentaries." (Cent. III. part 2, chap. iii. § 5.) And in the next section of the same chapter, the historian adds, "A prodigious number of interpreters, both in this and the succeeding ages, followed the method of Origen, though with some variation."

From these extracts we learn how general was the opinion among the early Christian fathers, that the Scriptures do contain some other sense besides that of the mere letter. That these men were not able to develope the internal sense in any consistent and orderly manner, or even to show what this sense is, because the Science of Correspondences was not revealed to them, is a fact well known. Not having this key, and not understanding the style of a divine composition, in their iuterpretations or manner of arriving at the spiritual sense of Scripture, there was, as might be supposed, but little order, method, uniformity or agreement among them. And, (as we should suppose would be the case when the imagination is left to wander at will without the restraining and guiding influence of some established principle,) they often extracted from the Word a meaning not less fanciful and puerile, than it was unauthorized and false. And it is probably on account of the danger apprehended by many modern commentators, in opening such a field for the fancy to play in, that has led them to adopt the doctrine concerning the Sacred Scriptures which is now most prevalent, that there is but one sense belonging to them, and this the plain and obvious sense.

But the danger in admitting an internal sense to the Word, which has been apprehended from this quarter, is entirely removed, when the rule for unfolding this sense, as revealed in the writings of the New Church, is well understood. There is then as little danger that the imagination will run riot in respect to the Scriptures, as there is that it will run riot in respect to this solar system, when we understand the science of mathematics, together with all that Copernicus has taught and Newton demonstrated. There is nothing that curbs a wayward fancy like the fixed and well-defined bounds of truth. It is where no law is seen to exist-where all is vague and uncertain--that imagination loves to

rove.

Let it here be observed, that, in what we have said thus far, it has not been our design to prove that the Scriptures do contain a spiritual sense; but simply to show what opinion has been entertained upon this subject by some of the most illustrious men that have lived under the first Christian dispensation. For if there be such a sense in the Scriptures, and if its existence be also susceptible of proof from the Scriptures themselves, we ought to be able, as we have before remarked, to find in the Old Church the traces of some idea concerning it, or of some belief in its existence. And from what has been shown, (much more of a similar kind also might be adduced,) we think every one must perceive that the notions upon this subject in that Church, have been just about as general, diverse, vague and indefinite, as might have been expected, upon the supposition that there does exist an internal sense, the precise nature of which however could not be known until it was revealed.

Let us now proceed to consider some testimony in proof of the existence of an internal sense in the Word; which testimony none, we trust, will be disposed to call in question. First, let us attend to what the Apostles teach upon this subject.

In the Acts of the Apostles, (chap. ii.) wherein are recorded some things which took place on the day of Pentecost, when there was such a powerful descent of