We have no objection to the spiritual, provided the literal be found untenable; but till it be found so, we shall continue to hold by it. Not that we object to a spiritual application of these predictions: all we ask is, that such a spiritual application be founded upon a literal interpretation. We would spiritualize and apply prophecy just as we would history; that is, we would first interpret it. We would deal with the Book of Isaiah as we would do with the Book of Chronicles. We might admit that there was more of figure in the former than in the latter, though not so much more as many suppose; but we would still maintain that the language was essentially the same, and that, therefore, the same grammar and lexicon would do for both. The question would turn out to be one as to difference in degree, not in kind. There are figures in Chronicles as well as in Isaiah; and the same principle which shows us what is literal and what is figurative in Chronicles, will also show us what is literal and what is figurative in Isaiah. It seems often taken for granted that those who assert the literal interpretation of the blessings promised to Israel, thereby exclude the spiritual. They do not. They assert the literal blessing, because they believe that God has promised it; but they maintain the superiority and necessity of the spiritual as firmly as do the others. They believe that Israel will be converted, and they rejoice in this as the glorious issue towards which the prophets point. But they believe more; they believe not only that they will be converted, but that they will be restored to their own land. But does their literal restoration take from them one single spiritual blessing? Or, does it prevent the Gentile nations from enjoying one of those innumerable blessings which are given to them for an inheritance?

Every word of prophecy is big with meaning. 

....We would remark upon the ambiguity with which spiritual expositors interpret the names Israel, Judah, and such like. These words may have three meanings. They may mean the literal Israel, or they may mean the visible Church, or they may mean the real spiritual chosen of Abraham. Now, what we remark is, that many expositors mix up these three meanings, so that sometimes one of these is meant and sometimes the other, according as it suits their interpretation. They lay down no rule for fixing the signification of these words, so as to determine exactly when they mean one thing and when they mean another. Prophecy, under such a system, is a mere mass of confusion and uncertainty. 

To say, as is often done, that when they refer to the Christian Church they must be spiritually interpreted, is such a begging of the question, that we wonder how any one could seriously advance such a statement. The very point in dispute is, whether they do refer to the Christian Church. How are we to rid ourselves of the inextricable confusion in which we are involved by not knowing what Israel really means? When we quote some strong passage of the prophets in proof of the restoration of the literal Israel, we are met with two explanations. At one time we are told that such a passage does not refer to the restoration, but to the conversion of the Jews: and, again, at another time, we are told, and often by the same people, that these prophecies do not allude to the Jews at all, but to the Christian Church. In this manner, Scripture is recklessly tossed about from one interpretation to another, till the Infidel scoffs at men pretending to confute him from prophecy, who yet do not themselves know whether the prediction refers to Jew or Gentile. Some, however, seem inclined to fix the meaning of most passages to the Christian Church; not to the merely visible Church, but to the really spiritual Israel. But here we do feel at a stand. These prophecies speak of the conversion of those called Israel, that is, of the conversion of those who are already converted! They were entitled to the name of Israel because they were believers, or converted men; and yet of these it is foretold that they shall be converted in goodly numbers in the latter days. What a maze! - Horatius Bonar