We have already defined the literal meaning of language to be that which mankind by general consent have agreed shall be the true and only meaning of certain words and sentences, as representatives of sounds and ideas; and the figurative meaning of language to be that meaning which it acquires by being borrowed from objects, &c., to which men have agreed it shall belong, and used to describe objects, &c., to which it does not conventionally belong. Words are used to represent the thoughts of the mind. These words, alone or connected together in a certain order, so as to express a single idea or ideas, in their relation to one another, compose language. These words, alone or connected, cannot have any but that meaning which mankind have agreed to attach to them, or that meaning which they have when borrowed from one object, &c., to describe another object, &c.

But, closely analysing the words as used in the latter case, we shall find that even then they do not undergo any change in their meaning. They retain that meaning which men have agreed shall be their only and true meaning under all circumstances. When it is said, in consequence of Jehovah’s blessing upon the earth, “The little hills rejoice on every side,” we know that the little hills did not rejoice. They did nothing at all. Still the word “rejoice” does not lose its meaning. The only change that really takes place is an imaginary one in the object itself. The hills are, by an act of the imagination, converted into an intelligent being, and then described in language appropriate to that being. When our Saviour says, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden,” he does not mean those who toil for a mere earthly livelihood, but sinful beings, distressed on account of their deplorable condition and danger. Still, the words “weary” and “heavy laden” do not lose their own meaning. By an act of the imagination the sinner is viewed as a labourer, and then language used to describe him which is truly appropriate to describe a labourer. Thus, should all the language that is called figurative be examined, the figure will be found to consist, not in a change in the meaning of the words, but in the view taken of the object described. So that language has but one meaning, and that a literal one, or that which mankind have agreed shall belong to it. This axiom is universally applied to all mere literary productions, in all languages, in all ages of the world. Just so far as mankind depart from it, they unsettle the laws of language, and render doubtful the meaning of any word or sentence.

When, however, men come to the investigation of the meaning of the Word of God, they no longer regard universal usage. By some strange hallucination they proceed as though Bible language were something different from human; and having no key to its meaning, they launch out upon the sea of obscurity in the bark of the imagination, with no better helmsman than a fickle caprice.

They are not satisfied with the meaning which the language gives them when interpreted according to universal usage. They contend that language may have in the Word of God a meaning different from either that called “literal” or “figurative.” E.g.: “And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be a king to them all.” This passage has no figure in it, and therefore is not figurative. The language is truly appropriate to the objects and events. The objects are not conceived by the imagination to be something that they are not, nor is language borrowed from any other object to describe them. It is a straightforward account of the restoration of the two nations, Judah and the ten tribes of Israel, to the land of Canaan, and their reunion under one king. But this meaning must be discarded as not being a true expression of Jehovah’s will. He has nothing to do with man’s temporal affairs; He only looks on the heart in its corruption, and speaks only of its purification and holiness; and whatever language He may use, it must be made to describe this spiritual state of things. God, by His Spirit and His holy ministry, will call Judah and Israel to repentance among the heathen wherever they are found. He will bring them into the Christian Church, unite them in the bonds of fellowship, and Christ shall rule in their hearts. This meaning of the passage is called spiritual. But we shall perceive by a little examination that the process of spiritualising is no less than making the language figurative. The event of the conversion and union with the Church of the house of Israel, is viewed by the imagination as a return from among the heathen, their national union and reinstatement in their own land, and language is used appropriately descriptive of it. Thus the axiom holds true even in this use of language, that the meaning must be either literal or figurative.

The cause of complaint for the use of language in this manner lies not in the violation of the axiom, but of the rules of figurative language.

The rules of figurative language are: 1^st. That there is a similarity between the two objects, events, &c., in question.

“But there is no similarity between the two events, —the migration of a people from one point of the compass to another, and the regeneration of the soul by the Holy Spirit.”

2nd. That the language belonging to an object or event well known, be used to describe an object or event not so well known.

But in this case, the event of the restoration of the two nations to their own land, their reunion, and their subjection to one king being denied, it is merely imaginary, and totally unknown to the reader; hence the language belonging to an event which never had realisation, and consequently unknown is borrowed, for the sake of illustration and perspicacity, to describe another event equally unknown. This is contrary to all principles of language. It plunges the reader into utmost obscurity. It darkens the words of Jehovah. It is a false and absurd use of language. The passage in question is literal, and only literal. There is no rational method to make it mean anything different from what it plainly conveys. Should the spiritualiser insist upon the lawfulness of his method of interpretation, and deny that he violates the principles of language, then the literal meaning of this passage must be true in order to the truth of the spiritual view.

The prophet is desirous of illustrating and making perfectly intelligible an obscure event, —the conversion of the Israelites of both nations to Christianity. He looks around for an event which bears some similarity to it, and which is well known to those addressed. His mind rests upon the event of the gathering of Judah and Israel from among the heathen whither they be gone, the bringing them into their own land, making them one nation, and placing one king over them; and he takes the language which is used to describe this event, to describe the other event. Hence the latter event must be a reality and well known, in order to make the other possible and palpable. Now where has this spiritualising process brought us? The spiritualist insists upon the conversion of the Jews as here taught. He must also admit their restoration to their own land. For, however many of the Jews may have returned to Canaan from Babylon, it is certain none of the ten tribes of Israel have been brought back, that the two nations have never been united nor ruled by one king, as one nation; hence the spiritualist is driven into a faith which he will be very loath to espouse, viz: that the conversion of the two nations to Christianity will not take place until they are restored to their own land, for this event must precede the other, in order to become its illustration and explanation.

(The restoration of the Ten Tribes of Israel is consequent upon their acknowledgment of Jesus as their king. God brings them to this confession, and grafts them into their own olive again as the result. —Editor Herald.)

Now it is a fact, that all those passages which literally predict the restoration of the Jews and ten tribes to their own land, are turned in this manner to a spiritual account by hundreds of readers and commentators of the Scriptures. This is done with a view to escape the fact of a literal restoration; but behold how the spiritualist fortifies the fact! Nothing could be more triumphant.

We have now to see how a figurative passage becomes spiritualised.

This passage is composed entirely of figurative language.

The prophet would describe the condition of the Jewish people, after their afflictions and desolations in war with the surrounding nations, which the providence of God had brought against them for their sins, and who, notwithstanding their national wretchedness, would not turn from their idolatry to the service of Jehovah. There is suggested to his mind the condition of an individual that has been scourged and beaten for his civil crimes, and in a lacerated state thrown into a dungeon, where no physician has access to him, and where are no means to palliate his wounds nor alleviate his distress. The former event is described in the language of the latter.

By this use of language, the condition of the Jewish people is presented in a clear and vivid light.

The whole passage is spiritualised by building a figure upon a figure. Instead of tracing a similarity between the thing to be illustrated and something which is better known, a similarity is traced between an illustration and a phenomenon which is not at all mentioned by the writer. This phenomenon is the depravity and wickedness of the Jewish people, not their physical misery in consequence of that moral state.

A similarity is discovered between the condition of an individual severely punished for his crimes, and an individual totally corrupt in his moral character, and the language of the former is borrowed to describe the latter. It is, therefore, figurative in this application of it. It is a wrong use of language, however, when judged by the principles of figurative language.

The object of all figurative language being to explain and ornament something already known, here the assumption is, that the figure is given for us to ascertain what the thing in question is, and what is said of it, and the thing discovered is wholly an imaginary creation. Had anything else been imagined, it would have answered equally as well.

It is a wrong use of language when judged by the context. Jehovah is said to have brought this condition upon the Jewish people on account of their perverseness. “Why should you be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more.” Now if the condition intended to be described by the figure be a moral one, the case would stand thus: “Why should ye be depraved any more? ye will become more and more depraved.” And the inference is that, on account of their total depravity, they were cursed with total depravity, which is nonsense.

Such is the result of spiritualising figurative language. Hence language neither has nor can have any other meaning than that which is either literal or figurative.

But there is such a thing as a spiritual meaning of language after all. It is that meaning simply which literal or figurative language gives us when determined by its own laws. The whole Bible is a spiritual book. It treats throughout of our relations to God and our fellow-men, and the obligations consequent upon them. They point to a holy and happy state of existence hereafter, as a reward of fulfilling, and to a miserable state of existence, as a punishment for violating, our obligations in those relations.

The whole end of the Divine revelation is summed up in a most comprehensive manner by the apostle Paul. Repeating our Saviour’s words, he says, referring to sinful beings: “To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith that is in me.” This end is a spiritual one. Everything that Jehovah purposes or performs is spiritual. It is for his own glory and the happiness of his creatures.

Whether he purpose the gathering of Judah and Israel from among the heathen, their reinstatement in their own land, the reign of Christ over them, or their regeneration and sanctification; whether he purpose the manifestation of God in the flesh, and his humiliation to an ignominious death for human redemption, or his coming the second time, not as a sin-offering, but as a triumphant Saviour to put an end to the mad career of Satan, and be admired by all who love his appearing, —it is all for the glory of God, and the good of his creatures. It is a spiritual end. But this spiritual meaning is always obtained by simply interpreting literal and figurative language by its own laws. Hence there is no conceivable necessity for spiritualising language in order to a spiritual meaning. This axiom is sound and infallible. —American Protestant Jewish Chronicle.

* * *