and that their new-born Reformation would be swaddled with many of the rags and tatters of the apostate church against which they rebelled? History and Scripture show that this was the case-that though it was a "glorious Reformation," in the sense of liberating the human intellect from priestly thraldom, and establishing individual liberty in the discussion and discernment of religious truth, it was a very partial Reformation, so far as doctrinal rectification was concerned-that but a very small part of the truth was brought to light, and that many of the greatest heresies of the church of Rome were retained, and still continue to be the groundwork of the Protestant Church.

Such as it was, however, the Reformation became the basis of the religious systems of Germany and England. Reformation doctrines were adopted and incorporated in these systems and institutions, and boys, sent to college in youth, were trained to advocate and expound them, and indoctrined by means of catechisms, text books, treatises, and not by the study of the Scriptures themselves; and on issuing forth to the full-blown dignities and responsibilities of theological life, these boys, grown into men, had to remain true to what they had learnt at the risk of all that is dear to men. It is not wonderful in such circumstances that they did not get farther than the Lutheran Reformation. The position was not favourable to the exercise of independent judgment. Men so trained were prone to acquiesce in what they were brought up to, from the mere force of habit and interest,sanctioned and strengthened no doubt by the belief that it was, and must of necessity be, true. And this is the position of the clergy of the present day. The system is unchanged. The pulpit continues to be an institution for which a man must have a special training. With a continuance of the system, we can

understand how the religious teachers of the people may be grievously in error, while possessing all the apparent advantages of superior learning.

of

It may be suggested that the extensive circulation of the Bible among the people is a guarantee against serious mistake. It ought to be so; and would be so if the people did not, with almost one accord, leave the Bible to their religious leaders. The people are too much engrossed in the common Occupations of life to give the Bible the study which it requires. They do not, with few exceptions, give it that common attention which the commonest of common sense would prescribe. They believe what they are taught if they believe at all. They cannot tell you why they so believe. Everything is taken for granted. Of course, there are exceptions; but the rule is to receive unquestioningly the doctrines early days. Sometimes it happens that a thoughtful reader comes upon something which he has a difficulty in reconciling with received notions. There are two ways in which the thing comes to nought. The clergyman or minister is consulted; he gives a decided opinion, which, however arbitrary and unsupported, is accepted as final. If the enquirer is not satisfied, his business or his connection with the congregation suggests to him the expediency of keeping silent on "untaught questions. If, on the other hand, he be of the reverential and truly conscientious type, though unable to satisfy himself of the correctness of the explanation prescribed, he thinks of the array of virtue and learning on the side of the suspected doctrine, and concluding that his own judgment must be at fault, he thinks the safest course is to receive the professional dictum; and so the difficulty is hushed up, and what might prove the discovery of Scriptural truth is strangled in the inception. Thus, you see, the great system of religious error is pro

tected from assault in the most effectual manner, and is consequently perpetuated from day to day with effects that are lamentable in every way. Through lack of the understanding that might be attained by the independent and earnest study of the Scriptures, the Bible and science are supposed to be in conflict, with the result of generating a practical unbelief, which is rising like a tide threatening_to sweep everything before it. The unconcerned are becoming con

firmed in their indifference and the intelligent among devout persons are growing uneasy with a feeling that their position is unsound at the foundation. It is easy to prescribe a remedy-a something that would prove to be a remedy if it could be generally applied; but it is hopeless to see any effectual remedy, so far as the mass are concerned, apart from that manifestation of divine power and wisdom that will take place at Christ's return. Nevertheless, the remedy is available in individual cases. Let earnest-minded people throw aside tradition. Let them rise to a true sense of their individual responsibility. Let them emancipate themselves from the idea that theoretical religion is the business of the pulpit. Let them realize that it is their duty to go to the Bible for themselves. If they study diligently and devotedly, they will make a startling but not unwelcome discovery; they will discover something that will make them astonished they ever regarded popular religion as the truth of God. They will attain to what many an intelligent mind anxiously desires, but despairs of obtaining: a foundation on which the highest and most searching exercise of reason will be in harmony with the most fervent and child-like faith.

We pass to the second part of the subject: "How to interpret the Bible." We get an introduction to this, in the words of Paul to Timothy-"The Scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation" (2

Tim. iii. 15). Here we have apostolic authority for the statement that the Scriptures "make wise." How is this effect produced? Obviously by the communication of ideas to the mind. But how are these ideas communicated? There is only one answer by the language it employs. Hence, it ought not to be a matter of difficulty to determine how the Scriptures are to be interpreted. It ought to be easy to maintain that, with certain qualifications, the Bible means what it says. And it is so. This emphasis of a very simple and obvious truth may seem superfluous, but it is rendered necessary by the prevalence of a theory which practically neutralises this truth as applied to the Bible. By this theory, it is supposed and assumed that the Bible is not to be understood by the ordinary rules of speech, but is couched in language used in a nonnatural sense, which has to be construed, and rendered, and interpreted in a skilled manner. What we mean will be apparent, if we suppose it were said to an orthodox friend, "The Bible, as a written revelation from God, must be written in language capable of being understood by those to whom it is sent." To this abstract proposition there is no doubt he would agree. But suppose his attention were directed to the following statements of Scripture: — The Lord God shall give unto him (Jesus) the throne of his father David (Luke i. 32), and he shall be ruler in Israel (Micah v. 2), and shall reign over them in Mount Zion" (Micah iv. 7). "the same Jesus that ascended to heaven shall come again in like manner as he ascended" (Acts i. 10). Yea, all kings shall fall down before him; all nations shall serve him his dominion also shall be from sea to sea, from the river to the ends of the earth (Psalms lxxii. 8-11); for he shall come in the clouds of heaven, and there shall be given unto him a kingdom, glory and dominion, that all peoples, nations, and languages may serve and obey him " (Dan. vii.

:

For

It is difficult to conjecture what the spiritualistic method of interpretation would have made of this as a still unfulfilled prophecy. That it would have expected the Messiah to condescend so far as to ride on the literal creature mentioned in the prophecy, is highly improbable in view of the surprised incredulity with which the idea is received that Christ will sit upon a real throne, and be personally present on earth during the coming age. All conjecture is excluded by the fulfilment of the prophecy in a way that compels a literal interpretation.

Matt. xxi. 1-4.-"Jesus sent two of his dis ciples, saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her; loose them and bring them to me And the disciples

went and did as Jesus commanded them, and brought the ass and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon. ALL THIS WAS DONE THAT IT MIGHT BE FULFILLED WHICH WAS SPOKEN BY THE PROPHET, SAY. ING,

" &c.

literal speech another. Both have their functions, and each is so distinct from the other, that ordinary discrimination can recognise and separate them, though mixed in the same sentence. This will be evident. on a little reflection.

We use metaphor in common speech without causing obscurity. We are never at a loss to perceive the metaphor when it is employed, and to understand its meaning. We never fall into the mistake of confounding the metaphorical with the

literal. The difference between them is too obvious for that. When we talk of tyrants "trampling the rights of their subjects under their feet," we mix the literal with high metaphor; but no one is in danger of supposing that rights are literal substances that can be crushed to pieces under the mechanical action of the feet. When we say, "he carries a high head," we do not mean a height that can be measured by the pocket rule; "a black look out has nothing to do with colour; "hard times" cannot be broken with the hammer; so with 66 over head and ears in love," "heart melting,' "beans dull,' corn heavy,' """oats brisk," &c. They are well-understood metaphors, beyond the danger of misconstruction; but suppose we say, "The Polish nationality is to be restored,” "The Emperor of France is about to visit the Queen of England," "A new kingdom has just been established in the interior of western Africa,' &c.; we use a style of language in which there is no metaphor. We speak plainly of literal things, and instinctively understand them in a literal sense.

Now with regard to the Bible, it will be found that in the main, this is the character of its composition. As a revelation to human beings, it is a revelation in human language. It is not a revelation of words but of ideas, and hence everything in its language is subordinated to the purpose of imparting the ideas. The peculiarities of human speech are

"The Lord hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt."

The fact that Egypt is metaphorically spoken of as an "iron furnace," does not interfere with the fact that there is a literal country of Egypt.

Nations are said to occupy a a position high or low, according to their political state. Thus in Deuteronomy xxviii. 13, Moses says to Israel

"The Lord shall make thee the head and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath."

So Jesus says of Capernaum (Matt. xi. 23)—

"And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell. And Jeremiah lamenting the prostration of Judah, says (Lamentations ii. 1)

"How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in His anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel.'

Then nations are likened to rivers and waters. In Isaiah viii. 7, 8 we

read

"The Lord bringeth upon them the waters of the river, strong and mighty, even the King of Assyria, and all his glory."

And hence, in referring to the constant devastations to which Israel's land has been subject at the hands of invading armies the words of the spirit are, "whose land the rivers have spoiled."-(Isaiah xviii. 2.)

Instances might be multiplied; but these are sufficient to illustrate the metaphorical element in the language of the Scriptures. Metaphor there is, without doubt; but this is a very different thing from the gratuitous and indiscriminating rule of interpretation which, by a process called spiritualizing," obliterates almost

every original feature in the face of Scripture, making the word of God of none effect.

There is another style of divine communication which is neither literal nor metaphorical, but which is yet sufficiently distinctive in its character to prevent its being confounded with either; and also sufficiently definite and intelligible to admit of exact comprehension. This style is the symbolic style, which is largely employed in what may be called political prophecy. In this case, events are represented in hieroglyph. A beast is put for an empire, horns for kings, waters for people, rivers for nations, a woman for a governing city, &c.; but there is in this style no more countenance to the spiritualization of orthodoxy than in the metaphorical. It is special in its character, can always be identified where it occurs, and is always explicable on certain rules supplied by the context. The literal is the basis; the elementary principles of divine truth are communicated literally; its recondite aspects are elaborated and illustrated metaphorically and symbolically. The one is the step to the other. No one is able to understand the symbolical who is unacquainted with the literal; and no one can understand the literal who goes to the Scriptures with his eyes blinded by the veil which the "spiritualizing" process has cast over the eyes of the people. This must be got rid of first; the literal must be recognised and studied as the alphabet of spiritual things, and the mind, established on this immovable basis, will be prepared to ascend to the comprehension of those deeper things of God which are concealed in enigmas, for the study of those who delight to search out His mind.

There remains one other important matter to be considered. Not long ago, on the occasion of an address on a kindred subject, a person in the audience put several questions. In answering them, the writer quoted from the prophets; but was stopped by the remark, "Oh, but that's in