reminding the Corinthians that the suc cess of his ministry bore convincing testi mony to the Divine blessing with which it was accompanied, he proceeds to state in what respects the New Testament, preach, ed by him, was superior to the Old. He distinguishes the two Dispensations by the terms Letter and Spirit; intimating, that the Law of Moses, in its literal acceptation, was fulfilled by the Gospel, in its spiritual sense; and that the former contained not in itself the power of delivering from sin and death, but pointed to the latter as bestowing life and immortality. By these remarkable expressions, the Apostle has been supposed to direct us to the contemplation of the Scriptures in a light which might not otherwise be sufficiently regarded; opening to the Interpreter a new field of research, into the mystical intent of many parts of the Sacred Writings. And since St. Paul himself occasionally has recourse to expositions of this kind, there is especial reason for investigating this as a distinct department of Theological inquiry.

Dismissing, therefore, any farther consideration of this particular text, I shall proceed to a more comprehensive view of the subject; endeavouring to shew, in the first place, the proper Use of this mode of interpretation, and the errors arising from its neglect; secondly, in what the Abuse of it consists, and the errors arising from carrying it to excess.

But here it may be expedient to premise some few observations upon the terms, literal, figurative, spiritual, and mystical.

Literal and figurative are terms which relate principally, if not exclusively, to modes of verbal expression. The literal sense is that which the words signify in their natural and proper acceptation. The figurative is that which they do not naturally denote, but which they nevertheless intend, under some figure or form of speech. These, therefore, thus explained, are terms purely of grammatical or rhetorical investigation; having no reference to any supposed occult or ulterior sense, in the writer's contemplation. They simply belong to the verbal signification; which,

with respect to the sense, may be virtually the same, whether or not expressed by trope and figure. Thus, when hardness is applied to iron or stone, the expression is used literally, in its proper and natural signification :--when it is applied to the heart, it is used figuratively, or in an improper acceptation. Yet the sense, allowing for the change of subject, is virtually the same; its application being only transferred from a physical to a moral quality.

The terms spiritual and mystical stand in contradistinction to both these. They import that, besides the direct or immediate signification of the passage, whether literally or figuratively expressed, there is attached to it a more remote or recondite sense; a sense founded, not on a transfer of words from one signification to another, but on the entire application of the matter itself to a different subject. This is the foundation of all fictitious modes of instruction, such as fables, apologues, and allegories, used as vehicles of moral and religious instruction; where the hidden

sense

sense is a distinct subject of inquiry from that of the diction in which it is clothed. It is to be observed, however, that the term figurative is not unfrequently used, (especially when applied to Scripture,) in the same sense with the terms spiritual and mystical, though not perhaps with strict propriety.

Again; there are other terms relating to the subject, which may require explanation. Emblematical and symbolical are terms relating to what is here meant by spiritual and mystical interpretation, not to merely verbal expression. They imply, as the words mystical and mysticism do, an occult or hidden sense intended by the writer, besides that which is open and manifest. The term mysterious, on the other hand, has no reference to this mode of interpretation. A doctrine may be mysterious, (that is, above our comprehension,) which is nevertheless expressed in the plainest language, and conveyed in the literal sense of the words. But mystic denotes another sense superadded to that which the words in their obvious signification convey.

The

The importance of these distinctions, with reference to the Interpretation of Scripture, may be illustrated by their ap. plication to some chief controversial points respecting the nature and design of the Holy Eucharist.

The words of our Lord, in the institution of this Sacrament, may be made to convey a very different meaning, according as they are literally or figuratively interpreted. The Romanist, taking them strictly in the literal sense, grounds upon them the monstrous doctrine of Transubstantiation; a doctrine, not only repugnant to the evidence of our senses and to every principle of reasoning founded upon such evidence, but also to Scripture itself; nay, even to the very words of the institution, when taken in connection with the circumstances under which they were delivered. For our Lord, in using these words, did not actually give his Body or his Blood to the Disciples; but gave them Bread and Wine as their Symbols. The plain inference is, that he did not intend his words to be understood in their literal sense. And this is further evident,