to them, have hurried into the contrary extreme, and denied the existence of either type or symbol in the whole volume.

The point which strikes us the most forcibly in this question is the exceedingly unsettled state of men's opinions, respecting the parts which are to be received as typical and figurative; and those, which detail either rites and customs peculiar to the Jewish Law, or are a mere narrative of general history. I know not that I could bring to my mind any two persons who agreed entirely, and without the least diversity of opinion on the extent to which the scheme of types and allegory should be carried. However their views may coalesce generally, there will invariably be some ground on which they will diverge from each other; and either follow a course more or less peculiarly his own. As far as I can learn, there is no standard of interpretation. And why is this?but because on this subject, the Bible has only been considered under certain points of view; in isolated portions; in selected instances; under the strong influence of prepossessions; and not as a whole. And yet this is the only mode of procedure by which, in any of its positions, it can fairly be elucidated; whether in its types and shadows; -in its doctrines; -in its institutions; -in the divine government ;in its inspiration; the only efficient mode of acquiring the truth is to bring the whole of Revelation into that unity of design and working, into which it must necessarily be brought, if interpreted rightly, as being the work of Deity.

What then is the true key? I conceive the Old Testament, in all its greater details, to be written in cypher; the principal deeds of its heroes to be allegorical; and the whole to have one undeviating relation to the Redemption made by Christ. I am perfectly conscious, that the opinions of manyperhaps of the generality-will revolt against a statement of so comprehensive and sweeping a character. A host of objections will arise in the mind to meet it. The prepossessions of men will be ranged against it; and the first thought will probably be, that it is incapable of proof.

In shewing therefore the addiction of the Jews, and of all ancient Oriental nations to the language of signs and symbols; and that it was a system derived originally from the Revelations of God himself, I have endeavoured to anticipate one form of objection, against the probability of its existence; and by the acquisition of this first step, leave to myself the single burthen of proving, that it is fully borne out in the history.

I would, then, lay down as a general axiom on the system of evidence which it is my intention to pursue, that in Scriptural Revelation after the Fall, there exist but two centres of action, -good and evil;-light and darkness; and that in one of these, the warring soul, at every period, must necessarily stand. There is no middle way; no neutral ground. The soul stands either in light or darkness; in favor or in sin. Whatever increases the power of the one, diminishes that of the other. If the light is increased, the darkness is diminished; and otherwise ;-does the darkness gain ground, the light disappears. Hence is it, that Scripture in its portraiture of characters, only gives so many illustrations of men,

acting in these centres; -only details the selfsame principle exemplified under one of these two forms. The outward act is the exhibition of the principle; and by this means conveys an instruction to the mind, far more vividly, powerfully and impressively than could be effected by the most continuous repetition of abstract laws and commandments; while at the same time, its whole design and range is brought within the compass of the most perfect unity.

Common opinion however is averse to this mode of reception. It usually regards Scriptural narratives as insulated histories; for the most part independent; and frequently wholly unconnected with each other. It sees no connecting link binding all together in singleness of design and thought. It reads them as the acts of men in different ages and countries; and different, not only in these external things-but also springing out of diverse principles, and leading to diverse results.

Much of this perhaps arises from our earliest impressions of Scripture; -impressions which, without knowing it, we are often not only unable to shake off; but incapable of accounting for the bias which we have received. We are taught for instance in childhood the history of Cain and Abel ;-the history of Abraham and Isaac; -the history of Joseph and his brethren; - the history of Saul and Samuel ;of David and Goliath;-of Ahab and Elijah ;-of Daniel and Darius; and each of these has probably been presented and impressed upon the mind, as if they had no more common bond, than as forming parts of the same holy and revered volume.

In after life we find ourselves, unconsciously,

under the same impressions. They are still so many different histories, arising from causes peculiar to themselves; occurring at distant and distinct epochs; -the works of different writers.

Now it is utterly impossible, while this feeling lasts, that we can have any adequate comprehension of the grandeur of Scripture Truth. The ideas may be right as far as the individual transactions are concerned; but cannot be, as to the full power and intent for which they were written. The mind cannot enter into their spirit; and must therefore regard them, except from some imagined beauty in style or language, with a certain, however slight, degree of indifference. It must receive them in a merely historical point of view; -more interesting, it is true, than the annals of Pagan nations, in that they show the rise and progress of the true Faith amongst men; but without such an assimilating esoteric principle, that every example therein recorded is but the reflected image of our own mind in one of the two contending and struggling centres of good and evil.

We contend, that they possess this power. It is immaterial under what variety the outward circumstances may be pourtrayed. In their real development they are one. They move in the two described circles; and whether Esau and Jacob; -Saul and Samuel;-David and Goliath; they are still the same principle often and successively repeated under the hand of God, for the special purposes of his own Providence.

But did not God, it may be asked, force those men, the prominent characters of whose lives are

transmitted to us, to act in the manner stated? Were not their deeds compulsively moulded to suit a particular form of doctrines, in which God esteemed it right that mankind should be instructed? Is not this wholly to deprive them of their freedom of action?-I would answer, no. I should rather suppose, that God suffered the deeds of those persons to be recorded, which would demonstrate the views of his own Providence in regard to man; and that he overruled the natural thoughts and feelings of their own minds to his purposes; than that he should have destroyed that freedom of action, the subversion of which would have been the removal of their responsibility. Questions of this nature may, I am aware, be urged to a great extent, and with great apparent force; but the simple fact of man's perfect responsibility, without which, the foundation of all religious worship is at once annihilated, -is sufficient to convince me, that however apparently constrained, the will and actions of all men must, in reality, have been free. I feel assured, that Pharaoh, in his oppression of the Israelites in the time of Moses, and in his continued detention of them, in defiance of the commands, miracles, and manifest power of the Almighty, followed the free dictates of his own evil heart and imagined security. I believe his actions, though perfectly foreknown by God, to have been as much his own, and the results of his own exerted will, as those of the very humblest and most unnoticed of mortals;-And yet what was Pharaoh but an instrument in the hand of God? What does God himself proclaim of him?* "In very deed, for this