language is metaphorical, and consequently that the throne and government are spiritual. But this involves serious difficulties, inasmuch as all that is here said of his government and the duties which he as king is to perform are evidently-except the phrase "the government shall be upon his shoulder," which intimates that the whole rule is to be on him and by him-to be exercised by him, and not by any other.

But if they will have Christ's throne, kingdom, and government to be spiritual and not literal; then it is but right that they should show divine authority for holding and contending for such a view. Assertion is not sufficient to secure belief. Proof is wanted and demanded. The interpretation is called in question unless they can show, that they have this by special revelation from God, or that all the other parts of the passage are to be metaphorically understood; or that this is in accordance with the interpretation of all prophecy, and its fulfilment too, as far as it has been fulfilled in the course of divine providence. Taking their rule of interpretation, which would be perfectly fair, and applying it to the other parts of the prophecy, what meaning would be brought out? It would teach that Jesus Christ was Spiritually born. But in what sense can the Son of the Virgin, the God-man, be spiritually born? He was flesh of our flesh, really and truly man, and how could his birth, when born of Mary, be a spiritual or metaphorical birth? How could this the Son, really man as well as God, be given spiritually to

the Israelites as a Son? Imagination and intellect must equally fail in explaining these difficulties, which have their origin in the spiritualizing system of exposition. But perhaps it may be replied, these are to be understood literally. If so, then all acknowledged rules of interpretation are thrown aside, or set at defiance, and caprice is made the standard. And still further, if we are to understand His name, "Wonderful, Counsellor; the mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace," as here given spiritually, what is the conclusion to which we will be led? Simply thisthat if they are to be understood spiritually they are not literally true. This is beyond all controversy the case. Then, if the various appellations here given as the name of Christ are not literally true, he is not, he cannot be a divine person. He is not God, but only in some respects, it may be difficult to say what, like him. This is an awful and revolting conclusion, and yet it is the conclusion to which we are inevitably led by the spiritualizing mode of interpretation.

Nor is this all; but this spiritualizing system of interpretation flatly contradicts the plain statement of the Spirit of God in the prediction. It denies that a child has been, or can be born; that a Son has been, or can be given; that, of the increase of his government and peace, there shall be no end; that there has been, or ever can be, one to whom all these divine titles can be justly and righteously applied; and that there ever shall be such a Kingdom as He is said to

establish and govern. This is no vague, rash assertion, no illegitimate conclusion, but on the contrary the only conclusion to which the spiritualizing interpretation conducts. And if this be so, is the spiritual interpretation to be regarded as sound, and to be implicitly received? Are we to believe after all this that Christ is to have no literal, no personal reign on earth; but that He is only to reign in the hearts of His people?

But it is also taught in Scripture, that the saints are to sit with Christ upon his throne, and reign with Him in His Kingdom. This is the privilege of all them, who overcome, or are victorious over their foes. Now if the spiritual interpretation be correct, namely, that by sitting upon the throne of His father David, is meant, that He shall sit upon the throne of the heart of His people, then all the victorious multitude who, by his blood and abounding grace, have overcome their enemies, shall sit with Him upon that same throne; that is to say, multitudes of saints shall sit upon the throne of the heart of saints, upon the throne of their own hearts! and these same multitudes shall reign with Him in the hearts of His believing people. Strange doctrine! Saints sitting upon the throne of the heart of saints, upon the throne of their own hearts! Saints reigning in the heart of saints! is difficult to understand and believe this. Nay, its palpable absurdity is sufficient to secure its rejection. If we admit the literal interpretation the difficulties in a great measure vanish. We can in some measure

It

see and understand how the saints can be co-enthroned, and co-regnant with Christ-how they are to participate in the government of His Kingdom.

The language of Gabriel to Mary is not metaphorical, but literal; and if something more were not meant than the spiritual reign which Jesus Christ has ever exercised by His Spirit in the hearts of His people, why make mention of the throne of David? The very mention of that throne leads us back to something literal and intimates, that when what is here spoken of is fulfilled, it will be literally fulfilled. And for what other reason did Peter make mention of God "having sworn with an oath to David, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit upon His throne ?" If a purely spiritual reign were meant, that could have been declared, and set forth in all its importance to the world, without any reference to the throne of David. But the fruit of David's loins according to the flesh, that is the human nature of Christ, God bound himself by an oath to raise up to sit on David's throne. Now, if by David's throne is to be understood the human heart, it may well be asked, how is God to fulfil this engagement made by solemn oath? How is the raised up humanity of Jesus Christ to sit in the hearts of men? If it is replied spiritually, the difficulty is not removed; the question still occurs, how will the humanity of Jesus, for it was his humanity that was raised up for that purpose, sit spiritually in the hearts of his people? If it be the throne of the

heart that is meant by David's throne, then beyond all controversy the humanity of Jesus must sit upon the throne of the heart, else God's oath must be worthless, and his raising the humanity of Jesus a vain act. But, for the humanity of Jesus to sit upon the throne of the heart, or in the hearts of His people, seems a physical impossibility, and the attempt to spiritualize this sitting or make it metaphorical seems absurd. And while this spiritual sitting and spiritual reigning, so eagerly contended for, are encumbered with so many and great difficulties, let it be remarked, neither is it clearly taught, nor even obscurely hinted at by Gabriel in the passage, nor is it plainly and indubitably taught anywhere in Scripture, but seems altogether a gratuitous assumption of man-a forced meaning which the passage does not bear; for it is not shown, either by reason or Scripture, but asserted, that Christ's Kingdom is a spiritual Kingdom, and that He shall reign spiritually over the house of Jacob.

Such an interpretation as a spiritual, or figurative, or metaphorical, to say the least of it, is very questionable; and what is more, it is neither clearly taught in Scripture, nor evidently implied; nor does it appear to be in accordance with the analogy of prophecy. It seems to be sustained principally, if not entirely, by the dogmatizing of men, who assume the authority of saying this portion of God's word is to be understood literally, and this portion spiritually, as if the whole matter were to be decided by their judgment and authori