introduced by him who used these symbols, that the letter must be disregarded, and a spiritual signification sought for instead. And yet many have brought forward this chapter in support of the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and the bodily presence of Christ in the sacrament.

In other places of the Bible, we shall find the inspired writers glossing over their own or Christ's words in the same manner, which will throw a like restriction over our interpretation, as John ii. 19. "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will rear it up." This was mistaken, and misapplied to the Jewish temple; but, says the Evangelist, in a parenthesis, "This spake he of the temple of his body." The living waters also are explained in like manner, which, by the woman of Samaria, had been before misunderstood, and carnally applied. (See John vii. 39. comp. iv. 10, 11.) Enough has, however, been said under this head to guide us in making use of the first rule of spiritual analysis.

But, SECONDLY, we may consider ourselves released from the letter, when we have reason to believe, from the context, the circumstancee of the place, or collateral considerations, that this was the Author's design. In many passages of holy writ, the intention of the writer is often not stated in so many words, when, from its general scope, the circumstances under which it was written, or indirect intimations, there is scarcely any doubt left on the mind that his words were figuratively designed. There, of course, needs more caution and attentive care in following out this rule; but the moral certainty which the mind afterwards arrives at, leaves it almost as comfortably assured of the truth as if it were explicitly stated. And it is commonly acted upon in the instructions of the most elementary teacher of the sacred volume. Take, for instance, the parable of the rich man who laid up goods for many years, but forgot

profits nothing.") See also his annotations on v. 53.-On the New Testament, p. 287.

Some valuable remarks on this chapter will also be found in a dissertation at the end of Dr. Arnold's "Sermons on the Helps and Hindrances of the Christian Life."

the concerns of his soul. (Luke xii. 16.) There is not one teacher who would not expound it as an illustrative story introduced for the purpose of impressing a moral lesson on the mind: Whence comes this moral certainty as to its spiritual interpretation? View the circumstances of the occasion on which it was called forth. At the end of one of our Lord's discourses, a man comes to him about a disputed inheritance, and begs that he would interfere with his brother, and secure for him half the estate. This indicated an avaricious and covetous spirit, and accordingly our Saviour having vindicated his character from the erroneous notion of his being a secular Judge or Prince, directs them to the sin which lurks under this desire of wealth: "Beware of covetousness." The minds of his auditors would now be fully alive to his design of impressing this moral truth on them—this they would see was the leading idea which occupied their Teacher's mind—and if any illustration were then introduced by him, it would be to engrave this lesson more indelibly on their minds. Here, then, comes the parable-its spiritual or figurative application would instantly strike them; and when Christ added, at the conclusion of it, a second time, "So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich towards God," no doubt would remain—indeed, in this case, we cannot conceive any to have existed— what his real intention was. We should apply these remarks to other cases, where the design is not so clear as in many of the parables, and which we know the Jews more than once failed to comprehend.

Once again. In the institution of the Lord's Supper, a due consideration of the various parts of this rule leaves no doubt, I think, on the mind, that our Lord intended his words to be taken spiritually: "This is my body," &c. For had these words been made use of, with reference to material bread, at any other time than the passover, his disciples, after their many conversations with him, would have been inclined to interpret them figuratively. When they saw their Master before their eyes, they would not have thought that he spake literally then-and when he instituted it as a commemorative

event of his one great sacrifice, after it had been offered on the cross, and he himself visibly ascended "up where he was before," they would have felt that his design was spiritual. This feeling would be strengthened, when they remembered that not more than a year ago, when using the same symbolical language, he had expressly forbad a literal interpretation. It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing." (John vi.) And we can scarcely conceive, besides this, that had they accepted the phrase literally, they would not have asked some questions indicating their feeling, to be either confirmed or denied by Christ himself.

Consider, again, the circumstances of the event. They had been eating the passover, the sacrifice commemorative of their departure from Egypt; and the Jewish phrases, with reference to this custom, would be well imprinted on their minds. Now, the form of the paschal sacrifice was this: "This is the body of the passover; this is the bread of affliction, which our fathers eat in Egypt;" or "this is the passover:" where "it is evident (as Dr. Hammond remarks on this place) that this was not the identical bread which their fathers eat in Egypt, but only the transcript of it," representing it. Our Lord, then, might well allude to these terms, and say, "This is my body;" represents that body which is soon to be sacrificed on the cross as your true passover, and the benefits of which death I will seal to every penitent partaker of this commemorative rite. So, likewise, the cup-the custom of the Jews being to pass round after the eating of the paschal lamb, the cup of charity and communion, when our Saviour passed round the cup, and said, This is the new covenant in my blood." It would be to them as though he said, "This is a federal rite between me and you; a sacrament of that blood of mine, which I shall shortly pour out upon the cross, and by which I will seal to you a new covenant-a promise of pardoning the sins of all that shall return from their sins, and obey me." There are, of course, other reasons which make this interpretation still more certain; but even the few topics I have mentioned form a cumulative argument in a very high

degree probable. But, however this be, my readers will see the utility and force of the rule insisted upon.

A THIRD rule which must not be lost sight of in support of this principle of interpretation, is the maintaining a spiritual sense, where some established doctrine would be contradicted, or the general analogy of the faith broken in upon by the literal. We need not analyze the process by which we are first enabled to establish particular doctrines; but on the supposition that the main and distinguishing doctrines of Christianity have been already formed and settled in our minds, we shall find ourselves possessed of a discriminating spirit, which will mark, at first sight, views which are repugnant or contradictory to them. Where, then, the letter of the sacred text undeniably contradicts them, a more congenial explanation must be elicited from the spirit. Thus, for instance, phrases respecting the attributes of the Deity: the "hand," the " finger," the "eye" of God, if interpreted literally, contradict our notions derived from the Scriptures of the nature of the Divine Being. "God is a Spirit;" No man hath seen God at any time," &c. They must, therefore, be considered as conventionalities; condescensions to the imperfections and limited comprehension of man, and to be interpreted metaphorically, as expressive of our ideas of the power and omnipresence of God.

Again, we reject the literal rendering of the words, "this is my body," because, if allowed, it would exalt the Lord's Supper into a continual sacrifice for sin, as the Roman Catholic mass teaches. But this is repugnant to the doctrine established of Christ's atonement, which affirms that the sacrifice has been, once for all, offered on the cross, and may not be often repeated. (See Heb. x.) We therefore conclude that our Saviour's expressions are figurative, and spiritually intended.

Once more, it is contrary to the analogy of our religion to believe that God is the Author of evil.

Now, there are many passages which seem to assert so much, and which we must therefore interpret figuratively, or give up our doctrine; as, for example: "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and

create evil; I the Lord do all these things." (Is. xlv. 7.) Supposing that this translation of the original is correct -and we may remark that a mistranslation is not unfrequently the cause of this seeming discrepancy-the difficulty can be only avoided by qualifying the expression, as we term it, or spiritualizing its import. I create that which was originally good, but has been turned to evil: or, I have power, as a Supreme Creator, over evil; or, I permit evil to spring up and grow in the world.

With these remarks on our second canon of interpretation, we shall conclude our present paper. The instances of its application have been purposely plain and simple, as more complicated ones would evidently defeat the object we had in view; but they will doubtless serve as a guide to less obvious applications, when they are met with in the course of a Teacher's reading.

ARITHMETIC.

TEACHERS of Arithmetic frequently fail in making their scholars good arithmeticians, because they instruct them rather how to do this or that sum, how to perform this or that rule, than impart the principles of arithmetic. If any one will examine a great number of schools, he will soon find how deficient the children are apt to be in the real knowledge of the most common points. They often have no idea of "decimal notation," though they use it familiarly. If asked what represented 43, they would say four and three, and would give no reason why the four stood for 4 tens, and not for 4 ones. They would not know that it was 4 tens and 3 ones. When they advance beyond the elements, this species of ignorance is overcome without their knowing it; but it prevents many children from ever acquiring any knowledge on the subject at all. Such questions may appear to be of small importance, and all must confess that there are others of much greater importance; but it is obviously the Christian duty of every Teacher to try to teach in the best possible manner; and such methods of imparting knowledge as are useful in arithmetic are