in the Church of Rome by the substitution of an authorised version for the original Scriptures, there at length arose, in the darkness of the middle ages, a race of Fanatics, who rejected grammatical interpretation altogether. They were distinguished in the twelfth century by the appellation of the Mystics, from their mystical mode of interpreting Scripture. These Mystics had an utter contempt for human reason, and human learning: they supposed themselves especially guided by the Spirit; and hence they compensated, by a kind of spiritual interpretation, for that grammatical interpretation, which they had never learnt. At the same time, the Latin version of the New Testament, in the absence of the Greek original, supplied them with an argument for the rejection of literal or grammatical interpretation, and the adoption of spiritual or allegorical interpretation, which the original itself does not supply. They appealed namely to that passage in St. Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians, which in the Latin Vulgate is translated litera occidit, spiritus autem vivificat;' and in our own authorised version, but the spirit giveth life.'

In this

the letter killeth, In this passage, the Paul was drawing a

Mystics imagined that St. parallel between two different kinds of interpretation. Construing therefore litera' by literal interpretation,' and 'spiritus' by 'spiritual interpretation,' they inferred, that the Apostle had condemned the former, and recommended the ex

clusive employment of the latter. Now the Apostle, according to his own words, was drawing a parallel of a totally different description: a parallel, which had no concern whatever with interpretation. He was drawing a parallel between the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ. The former does not afford the means of salvation: the latter does afford the means of salvation. This, and this only, is what St. Paul meant, when he said, that the one killeth, and that the other giveth life. It is true, that he applied the term Tgάupa to the former, the term ПIvsupa to the latter. But then he added explanations of those terms, which remove all ambiguity. The Law of Moses he called Tgάupa, as being Διακονία ἐν γράμμασι, as being Διακονία ἐντετυπωμένη ἐν λίθοις. The Gospel of Christ he called Πνεῦμα, as being Διακονία τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐν Bón. Now, as these explanations are not only Greek explanations, but Greek explanations of Greek terms, they are absolutely incapable of being transfused into any version. They can be understood only, with reference to the words of the original. It is therefore impossible, that any one who expounds this passage from the words of a translation, should expound it in the sense of the Author. But as the Mystics, like other members of the Church of Rome, expounded from an authorised version, they fell into an error, which a knowledge of the original would have prevented. They fell into the error of supposing, that literal or grammat

ical exposition not only might be, but ought to be discharged. And hence they acquired such a contempt for every thing not spiritual or allegorical, that the plain and literal meaning of a passage was regarded as a sort of husk, or chaff, fit only for the carnally-minded, and not suited to the taste of the godly.

But whatever absurdities might result from their interpreting the New Testament without a knowledge of Greek, the Mystics were in no danger of observing them. And in other respects the use of a translation was really advantageous. They could more easily bend it to their particular purpose: for, in the interpretation of Scripture, the words of a translation are always more pliant, than the words of the original. The obscurity, in which the sense of Scripture was thus involved, so far from being thought injurious, afforded them both pleasure and protection. Mystical interpreters delight in obscurity: obscurity is their proper element. If a passage is obscure in itself, they are in less danger of being thwarted by a literal meaning. If they make it obscure, they obtain this advantage, that the greater the obstacles, which they can oppose to the judgment, the greater is the scope for the exercise of the fancy. This fancy has been equally indulged by the Mystics of every age; and however eccentric we may think the expositions displayed in the Arca mystica, or Mystical Ark, of Richard of St. Victor, who flour

ished in the twelfth century, they have been fully equalled by the mystical expositions of these latter times. Nor is it by any means a matter of astonishment, that spiritual interpretation should recommend itself to our modern practitioners. No grammatical analysis, no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, no knowledge of antiquity, no knowledge of the situation and circumstances, either of the author, or of his original readers, is necessary for this purpose. Such knowledge is wanted only for grammatical interpretation. It is wanted only, when the words, which we interpret, are destined to perform the office, for which they were originally intended. It is wanted only, when the words, which we interpret, are considered, as signs to the reader of what was thought by the author. But the expounder, who regards them as passive instruments disposeable at his own will, and who employs them, as machines for the conveyance of his own thoughts, is freed at once from the shackles, which bind the grammatical interpreter, and is exempted from all other wants, than merely that of knowing what is best adapted to his own purpose.

Men, who are little versed in the history of biblical interpretation, and have never witnessed the wonders, that are done by the aid of allegory, will be surprised perhaps to hear, that the Supremacy of the Pope has been discovered in the first chapter of Genesis. The interpreter, who made this discovery, was himself a sovereign pontiff, and

one, who exercised that supremacy with unlimited sway. It was Pope Innocent the Third; the same, who excommunicated King John of England, and who threatened even the Emperor of Constantinople. For this purpose he addressed to him a Latin Epistle, in which he quoted from the first chapter of Genesis the passage relating to the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, the lesser light to rule the night. By these two lights, said he, are meant the office of Pape and the office of King; by the greater light is meant the former office, by the lesser light the latter office; so that, as the light, which rules the day, is superior to the light, which rules the night, the dignity of Pope is superior to the dignity of King. Lest this interpretation should appear incredible, I will give the words of the original Epistle. Pope Innocent III. then, having quoted from the Latin Vulgate, Fecit Deus duo luminaria magna, luminare majus, ut præesset diei, et luminare minus, ut præesset nocti, subjoined the following interpretation; Id est, duas dignitates instituit, quæ sunt, Pontificalis Auctoritas, et Regalis Majestas. Sed illa, quæ præest diebus, id est spiritualibus, major est alterâ, quæ noctibus, id est, carnalibus; ut quanta est inter Solem et Lunam, tanta inter Pontifices et Reges, differentia cognoscatur. Now this allegorical interpretation, absurd as it may appear, is not more absurd, than many, which are vented in the present age.