for the kingdom of God, is there not another spirit busy upon us, forming us after another and a hellish nature, and making us be born daily, if we may use such contradictory language, until we are ripened for a life which is death eternal? RUGBY CHAPEL, May 29th, 1836. APPENDIX A. ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE TWO SERMONS ON THE [Extracted from a Manuscript Work, of which the rest is incorporated in the Notes to the Sermons.] If this view of Prophecy be correct, there flow from it several rules of prophetic interpretation, of no small importance to understand and apply. I. That whereas some persons have insisted on the literal or primary, and others on the spiritual or second meaning of Prophecy or have attached respectively a literal and a spiritual sense to different parts of the same prophecy, it appears rather as a general rule, that all prophecies uttered under an imperfect dispensation have both a literal or human meaning, and a spiritual or divine one; and that the same prophecy is not to be taken in part literally, and in part spiritually, but is all capable of being understood in both senses: in other words, it may be read according to the meaning of its human author, or according to the meaning of its Divine Author. II. That prophecies uttered under a perfect dispensation, when the notions of good and evil are presented to us in their pure and spiritual form, divested of those associations with particular persons and places with which they had been mixed up heretofore, have generally one interpretation only, and that a spiritual one; and that if the form and language of F F 434 ILLLUSTRATIONS OF PRINCIPLES OF PROPHECY. imperfect prophecy be still in any instances preserved, it is but in form and language, employed for the sake of old associations; and often bearing evident marks, that it is now no more than the ornamental dress in which a truth, wholly spiritual, is conveyed. From these two main rules of interpretation, others of a subordinate character may be derived. For instance, it follows from the first of them,— 1. That in ascertaining the first, or human meaning of any prophecy, we should proceed as with any other work merely of human composition. We must try, in the first place, to ascertain its date, the circumstances under which it was delivered, and the ideas which were predominant in the mind of the writer. For the benefit of this lower sense of prophecy is chiefly historical; it gives us a reflection of the human mind under particular circumstances,-disclosing to us at once its sources of trouble and of consolation. And here, I imagine, there is room for the exercise of much deeper learning and sounder criticism, than have ever yet been applied to the books of the Old Testament. 2. That notes of time, place, or individual persons, belong to the lower sense of prophecy alone, and not to the higher : with the exception of such prophecies as may relate to the first coming of our Lord in the flesh. For with the exception of Christ alone, as has been already stated, persons are no pure embodying of principles, nor is there any essential holiness attached to one country more than to another. What is prophesied, therefore, of persons and places, belongs necessarily to the lower and imperfect tone of prophecy; the full truth cannot be estimated till we substitute for these concrete terms the pure and abstract principles for which alone the highest happiness is reserved. 3. That descriptions of good and evil, destined to be the portion of any such individuals or nations, will be hyperbolical when applied to the human meaning of the prophecy, and true only if applied to its divine meaning. For the language sometimes reaching to the highest conceivable amount of blessing, its fulfilment would be unfit to individuals so compassed about with sin and infirmity. And so, also, will it be with the language which describes the interpositions of God's power to execute judgment. For here, again, the very continued existence of this earth, with its evil and its good dwelling together, is a proof that God's interpositions in judgment hitherto have been but partial and typical; that He has stayed His arm in the midst of His work: and thus that language which describes Him as pouring out the full measure of His anger, can only receive its proper fulfilment at that great day, when good and evil shall be so separated as that the abstract principles and the persons in whom they are embodied shall be properly identical. Now, if any reader, having followed me thus far, should be disposed to deny these rules, because prophecies occur to his mind to which he cannot apply them; let him remember that I do not pretend to state them as universal, but as general; that of some apparent exceptions I am myself aware, and others I may possibly have forgotten or passed over. Still I think that the rules are generally true, and I will proceed to try their validity on some of the most remarkable prophecies of the Old Testament, which are especially referred to in the New. My first instance shall be taken from the second Psalm. Here, as in almost all the Psalms, I shall consider merely the internal evidence in attempting to ascertain its date and circumstances, considered in its human meaning. The titles of the Psalms, to say nothing of the difficulties of the actual interpretation of them, are, I am convinced, of no more authority than the short notes added to St. Paul's Epistles by some of the ancient copyists. Both are found to be inconsistent with the internal evidence furnished by the very works to which they refer. The second Psalm, then, in its first meaning, is an expression of confidence and triumph on the part of a king of Israel, that he, as reigning in God's name, and enforcing God's law, would be upheld by God's power; and that the neighbouring heathen princes, who were impatient of his supremacy, should yet be forced to acknowledge it. So fully does the Psalmist feel that he belonged to God, that he says, "Jehovah said unto me, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee;" and again, at the end of the Psalm, he addresses his enemies with this warning, "Kiss [i. e. do homage to] the Son, [i. e. the King, whom Jehovah regarded as His Son,] lest He be angry, and ye should perish from the right way." The Psalmist then, a king of Israel, and one faithful to the law of God, says that God called him His Son, and had, as it were, begotten him as such in the day that He raised him up to be king over his people. So we read in Psalm lxxxix. verse 27, that God declares that He will make David "His first-born, higher than the kings of the earth ;" and again He promises of Solomon, "that He will be to him a Father, and Solomon shall be to Him a Son." (2 Samuel vii. 14.) A king over God's people, ruling in righteousness, is so much in the place of God, that God vouchsafes to call him His Son. Further, the Psalmist represents God as saying to him, "Desire of Me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession." He was to be the greatest of kings, inasmuch as he was the Son of God, that is, the ruler of God's people, according to God's law. Now by whatever king of Israel we suppose this Psalm to have been written, even if it were David himself, still we must allow that the circumstances of his case do not fully come up to the picture here given of the excellence and greatness of the king, the Son of God. And the reason is, because, notwithstanding the general sincerity of David's obedience, yet he could not be said to answer perfectly to the idea of a righteous ruler over God's people, so like to God in character and office as to be called the Son of God. Up to a certain point David was such a ruler, but yet imperfectly; and so, also, the promises made to the Son of God in the Psalm could only be fulfilled to David imperfectly; for the fulness of the promises required a corresponding fulness of resemblance to that |