could and did sit spiritually upon that throne; that his government was in verity a spiritual government, and his kingdom a spiritual kingdom; for until this is done it is impossible to see how the prediction can be actually and in verity fulfilled. If David had such a throne, a spiritual throne, surely we need to have it explained what that throne was, and how David, who was a mere man like ourselves, could sit upon that spiritual throne; how material man could occupy a spiritual seat. If David had not such a throne, then this throne, which was not David's, could not be promised to Christ. But David's throne was promised to Christ; and David's throne was, as we have seen, a material throne, consequently it was David's material throne that was promised to Christ; and when this promise is fulfilled Christ must, Christ will, sit upon David's material throne. He cannot sit upon any other, for David never had another; and if he sits upon any other he sits upon what was not David's, and upon what was not implied in the promise, and consequently the promise of God to his Son remains unfulfilled, ever unfulfilled. And when we think of a spiritual throne we think of something we cannot understand; and the more we endeavour to comprehend the idea the more does it elude our comprehension; and it is precisely so with regard to Christ's sitting spiritually upon that throne.

We cannot give up the throne, and the sitting upon that throne, as a mere figure of speech, to accommo

date another interpretation, because David had his literal throne, and did literally sit upon that throne, and that throne was the throne promised to the Virgin's Son, and promised certainly that, like his father David, he might sit upon it. This is the plain, grammatical meaning of the passage, and the only idea that would be conveyed to the mind of an unbiased reader. But while we contend for the literality of the throne, and sitting upon the throne, it is not for a moment to be supposed that it is denied, or even insinuated, that Christ does not reign by his Spirit in the hearts and over his people. That is a precious truth, a divine prerogative of Christ, most cordially admitted, and in which we supremely delight, and regard as indispensably necessary to his glory and our being made perfect in holiness. In this way he reigned in the first renewed heart, the heart of Abel, who offered a more acceptable sacrifice than his brother, and for the admission of whose spirit the gates of paradise were first thrown open. And he has so reigned in the heart of every believer, under every dispensation, from that early period to the present hour; and if this is all that is meant by the throne of his father David being given to Jesus, it was only promising to give to him what he already, and had always, possessed. According to this interpretation, nothing new was promised, and nothing new would be given. The promise is indeed without meaning. Nor is the difficulty removed by contending that the reign in this spiritual sense shall

be more extensive, shall be over mankind generally, shall be over earth's inhabitants, for the nature of the reign is the same-spiritual, and by the Spirit in the hearts of men. A mere extension of the government, no matter how great that extension may be, cannot in the nature of things change the nature and manner of the government itself, cannot introduce the king himself, and set him personally upon a visible material throne. And surely no man, upon mature reflection, could suppose the Spirit of God capable of such trifling as this; and consequently there seems no clear and Scriptural evidence that the prediction is to be understood spiritually; and that it shall be in verity, and to the fullest extent, fulfilled, by Christ reigning merely in the hearts of his people, or spiritually over them, and without appearing visibly and personally in the midst of them.

But if, after all, it should be asserted and maintained, as perhaps it may be, that Christ is now spiritually occupying David's spiritual throne, and spiritually reigning over the spiritual house of Jacob; and that this reign is destined to increase till it is exercised everywhere, and over every inhabitant of the earth, then we confess our ignorance, and declare that we do not know what the spiritual throne of David means, and humbly ask information. If it should be replied, by way of instruction, "David's spiritual throne is the throne of the believer's heart," we would then ask the wise teacher, Where is this instruction to be obtained?

Is it to be found in the Bible? If so, designate the place, that all may read, learn, and understand. So far as we understand the Bible, the throne of the believer's heart is not the throne of David, but the throne of the Majesty on high-God's throne. If then the throne of the believer's heart be the throne of God, and surely this is what God claims for himself, it must be blasphemy to call God's throne, the throne of David. If this then be a fair and legitimate conclusion, if it be a great Bible truth, then every one who thus spiritualizes the passage is a blasphemer, for he sets David upon the throne of God. But this is a sin from which many who hold the spiritual interpretation, would shrink if they could see it precisely in this light. Nor is this all; but if it be a fair and right interpretation thus to spiritualize the first part of the prophecy, so must it, by parity of reasoning and all sound principles of philology, to interpret every other part of the prophecy. No man who is not under some peculiar bias will deny this. If then spiritualists will have the first part of the prophecy thus interpreted, surely they cannot object, and they have no right to complain, if we interpret what remains according to the same rule. If Christ's sitting upon David's throne, and ruling his people Israel, be spiritual and invisible, then his being born of the Virgin is also spiritual and invisible. And what such a birth would be we pretend not to know, neither of it are we able to form any conception, and therefore leave those who teach and advocate such a

mode of expounding the Scriptures to explain. If one act be spiritual, according to the laws of sound philology so must every other in the same passage-his birth as well as his government, his birthplace as well as his kingdom. But if this mode of interpretation is introduced-of spiritualizing when the language is not metaphorical-where shall it end? Where but in the mazes of endless error?

Isaiah speaks of Christ's throne and kingdom, in such language as seems to exclude the very possibility of the idea of their being spiritual or metaphorical, when he says: For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth even for ever." If this language has any meaning it certainly is, that the child born and the Son given shall sit as David did, personally and visibly upon his throne, the throne of Israel; and that he shall reign king of Israel as David did. His government will be like David's, literal, but of a far superior character, being absolutely righteous and holy. It will not do merely to deny that this is the meaning of the passage, and assert that the language is metaphorical and the acts spiritual. It must be proved that the