the general view such interpreters have taken of the whole passage. And if this remark is true, are not all those interpretations which come under the 2d and 3d classes, set aside? But what is meant by "Which things are explained allegorically?" Did the Apostle refer to the fact, that the Jews of his day allegorized this part of the Old Testament narrative? and then, did he mean to demand for this interpretation of these unbelievers, the force of a divine precept? or, did the Apostle mean to maintain the principle, that an allegorical explanation of a passage, which has really but one plain meaning, should be attended to, and regarded so much as to lead them to renounce their Judaism? For that this is the design of this whole passage, is the plain implication of v. 21, 22. Adhering to this signification of ἀλληγορούμενα, we can understand "Ariva, &c, only in one way, viz. "Which are (now, by me) allegorically explained." But according to this, Paul, in the first place, professedly puts upon the passage a sense which does not belong to it; and, secondly, betrays his design to those he is addressing; a certain way of destroying the effect he wished it to have. The other signification of the word would give this meaning to the passage; "which things are spoken allegorically." If daλnyopośμsra is taken as an adjective, agreeable to Winer, as above noticed, it amounts to the same; "which things are allegorized," according to the common version. Instances of this use, both of the verb and of the participle in an adjective sense, are cited by different commentators. Porphyry, Vit. Pythag. p. 185, "The one kind (of characters) communicating their meaning by imitation (of the thing designed,) the other yoрośμ xarà rivas airiyμovs, express their sense by allegories." Eustathius; "This cyclops, sis Ovuòr anλnyopeĭtai, is allegorically anger." In the life of Homer, p. 325, it is said, concerning the marriage of Jupiter and Juno, related by him, dozɛî rauta ¿ŋyopεĩa, these things appear to be allegorical, viz. as it is added, that Juno signifies the air, and Jupiter the æther. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromat. v. 11, pis aλnyopełτaι ¿dorý the serpent is allegorically pleasure.

The following are instances of the participle used adjectively. Philo de Cherub. "The leaders of the sect have left many monuments (or works) αλληγορουμένης ἰδέας of the allegorical kind." Heraclides Ponticus, in Allegor. Hom. says, that the fable of Homer, in which he represents Thetis and Briareus releasing Jupiter from chains, can be excused only

ἔαν ἐπιδείξωμεν ἀλληγορουμένον τὸν μύθον, if we represent the fable as allegorical.

All this is certainly enough to prove that the words or anλnyogośμeva may be rendered are allegorical; and this rendering is, doubtless, for the reasons given in the examination of the other, to be preferred. Nay, this use of the word seems to be most common. The plain statement of v. 2426, then, would be, "which things are allegorical. For these (two women) are the two covenants; one from Mount Sinai, which brings forth to servitude, and corresponds to the city Jerusalem, and is in bondage with its children; but the Jerusalem which is above, is free, which is the mother of us all."

My first remark as to these verses is, that in their plain meaning, they agree with no hypothesis yet made, in explanation of the passage. If Paul is to be understood, for instance, as we understand Heraclides, in the last quotation, he is made to say that the Mosaic narrative was not a history of real occurrences, but was framed with the design of representing by symbolical personages the two covenants, and those embraced under them. They agree most nearly with that of the double sense. "These characters are real historical characters; the events recorded actually took place; but, besides their nature, as matters of simple fact, they are also allegorical representations of spiritual things." But then, reasons have been given, showing that this hypothesis is not true. The one, simple, historical meaning of the passage, which admits and requires no secondary one, has been exhibited above. The hypothesis next mentioned, which, for brevity's sake may be called the German, denies that the things which Paul finds in the passage, are there, either literally or allegorically, and the same ground is maintained by Borger.

I would remark further, that it is very improbable that the Apostle has made a second and allegorical use of a passage, when the real one exactly suited his purpose; or that he has first given the passage a defective, secular meaning, and then allegorized that into a second spiritual one, when the real meaning was itself spiritual and applicable. On the contrary, if, in the passage we meet with something of the external form of allegory, it is highly probable that the allegorical meaning given to the quotation, will be found to be nothing but its real genuine sense, and the use to which it is applied, one to which it is literally and historically applicaVOL. IV. No. IV.-3 Y

ble. And why may not this be the specific state of the case before us? Here is the exterior, the drapery of allegory, but beneath this suspicious, or, perhaps, splendid outside, there is all the honesty or homeliness of the simple truth.

The plain reason for this opinion is, that the original passage, as explained and illustrated above, by independent evidence drawn from inspiration itself, seems to contain all that the Apostle finds there. What conclusion, then, can be drawn, other than that just mentioned?

But a question meets us here, If the Apostle has used the passage in its plain true meaning, why has he thrown his argument into an allegorical form? The reason, doubtless, is to be sought in the almost universal mode of religious teaching and writing in his day. The allegorical was a mode of instruction which had been current from the earliest ages; and was at this time, especially among the Jewish doctors, almost exclusively followed. It would be very easy, but the undertaking would perhaps be more curious than useful, to prove this assertion by actual quotations from the Jewish writers and the Christian fathers. To mention but one instance, Philo, allegorizing this same passage, makes Sarah to represent virtue, and Hagar science. Science is the handmaid of virtue, and prepares the mind to receive and carry out into practice its instructions, when it may safely be discarded and forgotten. This mode of teaching (by allegories) appears every where in the Bible. Jotham used allegory in his speech to the Shechemites, Jud. ix. 7—15; the prophets frequently used the allegory or the parable in their instructions, Isa. v. 1—6; and Christ himself, has made more use of the parable than of any other mode of speaking. Does he wish to warn the people against neglecting the instructions which they heard? He speaks the parable of the sower. Does he wish to show the Jews their wickedness, and guilt, and impending ruin? He relates the story of the vineyard and the husbandmen. Does he wish to illustrate the readiness of God to receive and pardon returning sinners? He tells of the prodigal son. This will serve to show how familiar the parabolic or allegorical style was, both to teachers and people of that day; and this fact is sufficient to account for the allegorical shape of the Apostle's argument in the passage under consideration.

Again, the supposition is easy, and is sustained by facts, that the circumstances or events chosen as the foundation of

an argument may not correspond in all their parts, to the subject to which they are applied; so that in the adjusting of the allegory, language may be used, or minor points on either side may acquire a prominency, which, in plain argument, would not have appeared. A few instances will make this matter plain. In the conclusion of the parable of the unjust steward, Christ says, Luke xvi. 10-12. "He that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least, is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have been unfaithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?" The whole form of these three verses, owes it occasion to the parallel intended to be run between secular and eternal things, or rather, to Christ's design of speaking of eternal things in language borrowed from the circumstances of those merely secular, and no one will say that in the circumstances of the spiritual things themselves here spoken of, there is any thing of itself sufficient to account for the language chosen. Consequently, in the actual interpretation of the discourse, we have to abate from the apparent force of many of the expressions, and receive the views given under material modifications derived from other literal passages. Again, Luke xix. 26. "For I say unto you, that unto every one which hath shall be given, and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him," &c. and the similar passages. Here also it is plain that the doctrine taught is thrown into a shape, borrowed from the circumstances chosen by which to convey it, which it would not of itself have assumed. There is a palpable, bodily outline given to it, which if we regard as the native inseparable shape of the truth itself, we shall greatly err.

Keeping these things in mind, let us now inquire, what circumstances, connected with the doctrine which the Apostle was inculcating, and with the historical events and personages to which he refers, were capable of being worked up into an allegorical costume, with which to invest his argument. To show what he meant by the words, " which things are allegorical," he says, "for these (i. e. these women, Sarah and Hagar) are the two covenants." ing here* does not alter the sense. Now, if we can under

The various read

The article before diaonxat is omitted in some manuscripts.

stand how Sarah and Hagar were the two covenants, we shall know the exact meaning which the Apostle attached to Yopouμeva. As to the covenant referred to, there can be no doubt, v. 24. Hagar is the covenant from Mount Sinai; Sarah is the Jerusalem which is above. Hagar is the covenant under which the lovers of Judaism were; Sarah, that under which Paul, and those who had embraced his doctrines, had placed themselves. Hagar and Sarah were not literally, of course, but allegorically the two covenants. Absolute expressions in such a sense are very common in the oriental idioms. We need only refer to such as occur in 1 Cor. x. 4. Gen. xli. 26, &c. And no one, familiar with those idioms, or even with the English Bible, need be told, that by the phrase "children of a covenant," Paul means those who are parties to a covenant; who are within its provisions, and controlled by its arrangements. This use of the words children, son, daughter, is a genuine Orientalism, and is to be met with every where in the Old and New Testaments. Thus, citizens are called "children of the kingdom," Mat. xiii. 38; companions of the bridegroom are called "children of the bride-chamber," Mat. ix. 15; the inhabitants of Zion, are called "children of Zion," Ps. cxlix. 2; hostages are called "sons of suretyship," 2 Kings, xiv. 14. So extensive and uniform is this phraseology, that it was the most natural and obvious language by which Paul could have expressed his idea. Christians, therefore, were children of the "covenant of grace;" Judaisers were children of the covenant made on Sinai. It has been shown that Isaac was really under, i. e. was a child of the first; and that Ishmael was really under, i. e. was a child of the last. But Isaac was a child of Sarah; Ishmael the child of Hagar. So that, by a kind of necessity, resulting from the idiom of the language, and the views taken of the parties concerned, the two women and the two covenants are respectively brought into correspondence; and Sarah represents the covenant of grace, and Hagar the old Mosaic dispensation. Further, though Isaac is referred to in his personal history only, yet, as he was one of the whole multitude of the spiritual seed of Abraham, what is true of him, is true of all, so that his standing and his fate are a perfect exemplification, and, therefore, representation of theirs. For the same reason, the standing and fate of Ishmael are, as has been before remarked, an exemplification of those of the whole party to which he belonged. And we have in the Old