thus coming into deep sympathy with them,-of imbibing a noble catholicism of spirit, of not straitening the ingenuous heavings and yearnings of a pure benevolence by the narrow limitations of sect or party,-of giving themselves, in fine, to the interests of man, universal man, in aiming at which, they approximate most nearly to the designs of his Creator.

ART. II. HAVE ANY PASSAGES IN THE SCRIPTURES A DOUBLE SENSE?

By Rev. PARSONS COOKE, Pastor of a Church in Ware, Mass.

THOUGH either side of this question may doubtless be taken, salva fide et salva ecclesia, still a satisfactory determination of it, is, in my view, highly important. That there is a double sense has rather been assumed than proved, by our popular commentators. But the doubts of many learned German commentators, and of some in our own country, are reasons why it should no longer be regarded as a first principle in hermeneutical science. I propose in this article to state briefly some of the reasons which incline me to the belief, that a double sense is, in some instances, to be found in the Bible.

The double sense, if found at all, exists in those passages where a divine prediction, promise, or assertion, includes two objects or events, mutually related as type and antitype. For example; Christ is predicted under the name of David, and the prediction is so formed as to have its fulfilment both in Christ, and in David. Again; the promise of rest to the ancient people of God, is so shaped as to have its fulfilment, both in the possession of Canaan, and in the possession of heaven, two objects related as type and antitype.

It will readily be seen, that language, having this twofold application, differs essentially from simple allegory. Allegorical language has a literal and figurative sense; only one of which, however, is the real sense intended to be conveyed to the reader's mind. Some object, real or imaginary, is held out as the means of illustrating thought, or as a picture, to exhibit the features of an absent original. But in the case of typical language, both senses are real

senses. Though by force of the resemblance which must always exist between the type and antitype, the two objects standing thus together, must reflect light upon each other, and thus serve the purpose of mutual illustration, yet this is only an incidental advantage of typical allegory, and does not appear to be its leading design. Both the picture and the original are here real objects, made to stand together in the prediction, not only because of a fancied similitude, but because of a real constituted relation between them. In case of the simple allegory, the writer draws his imagery from any chamber of fancy he pleases, and seeks only something which shall have a striking likeness to the object he wishes to present, or the truth he wishes to illustrate. But in the typical allegory, he is confined to objects or events, which the Spirit of prophecy may furnish him, and which, under the peculiar economy of the Hebrews, had the constituted relation of type and antitype.

Here we find a valid distinction between the typical allegory, and the imagined basis of what is called the spiritualizing of Scripture; or that allegorical mode of interpretation, which gives to every passage, besides its obvious grammatical sense, an internal or spiritual sense. If the principle of typical allegory authorized any thing like this, there would be reason enough why it should be rejected. For that system of interpretation, by making the divine oracles mean every thing and any thing, defeats the whole design of inspiration. But the typical allegory has its determinate limits. It is never found except when the general laws of language, together with the known modes of Hebrew thought, show that both of the objects coupled in the prediction were intended by the writer; and except when these objects have to each other that peculiar relation of type and antitype which no objects can have, unless ordained in a divine economy.

Again; it will be seen by the above definition, that there is no resemblance between the double sense contended for in the Bible, and that of the heathen oracles. Their double sense was a mere ambiguity in phraseology, constructed for the purpose of deception. What was the amount of the response made to Pyrrhus?

"Aio te Eacida Romanos vincere posse."

Instead of conveying a double sense, it really conveys no

certain sense at all. Whereas the divine oracles, when applicable to two related objects, convey two real and consistent senses in one assertion, both of which are realized in the fulfilment of the prediction.

That such a double sense may be found in the sacred writings, appears, in the first place, from the fact, that there was in the Hebrew economy a broad basis for the use of it. The mind of the Hebrew was familiarized to the use of types. In the infancy of the church and of the world, God suited his mode of communicating the mysteries of religion to the condition and capacity of his people; and in doing this, made more use of material imagery than of words. Hence the institution of typical ordinances and offices, of the tabernacle and temple, with their complicated services, in which all the leading parts of the system of salvation were pictured out, and addressed to the eye. The whole ritual of the Hebrews was typical. And the constant use of a ritual so constructed could not fail to excite a habit of contemplating religious truths and events, in close connexion with their accustomed types. As language and thought become by custom so connected, that we can scarcely think without the help of words; so the Hebrew saints could hardly conduct their religious contemplations without the help of their apparatus of types, which was but another kind of language. Their thoughts would naturally fall into such a familiarity with the mode of coupling type and antitype together, or rather of looking through one to the other, that the double sense for which we contend, would be to them as easy of apprehension, in any communication relating to religion, as a common parable. A mind so accustomed to find the most important reality of a sacred object, not so much in the object itself, as in that which the object was appointed to typify, would not be stumbled in finding a verbal prediction presenting objects or events in the same typical connexion, -in finding its most important reality in a future something on which fell the shadow of the object immediately set forth in the prediction. Nor would there be any transgression of the laws of language in expressing ideas so related in such a form. It is the business of language to express ideas as they naturally or habitually exist in the mind of the writer and reader,-to put them forth according to the mutual relations in which they exist in the mind. And it was perfectly consonant with the general design and princi

ples of language for Hebrews, with their habits of thought, to speak of two events which bore the relation of type and antitype, in one and the same passage and form of expression.

Another thought bearing on the same point is, that a type of a future person or future event carried in itself the force of a prediction. In some instances, the making of that which itself was typical the object of a prediction, would of itself amount to a double meaning;-the event immediately predicted being a type, that is, predictive of another event, we have of course a double prediction. For instance; the succession of kings on David's throne, being itself typical of the reign of the Messiah-itself a standing prophecy of that reign, it would become a natural way of shaping a prediction which was designed to express at once the perpetuity and glory of that succession, and the perpetuity and glory of the Messiah's reign, to let the prediction run in the name of David and his successors, leaving the second class of events to be indicated by the inherent predictive force of the first. One of the quantities being the natural exponent of the other, the terms of the first may express the sum of both the quantities.

of

Again; Hebrew institutions were themselves a system of language, as really as verbal communications, and many of them are well known to have had a double sense. Take, for instance, that of the brazen serpent. It was erected in the midst of the nation for the immediate purpose curing those in whom rankled the poison of the fiery serpents. But its ultimate purpose was to direct the eye of faith to the Saviour of the world. "For as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so also shall the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The Israelites were addressed, in the erection of the brazen serpent, by a language that had a double meaning. That language was, look and live, look, and be cured of your external wounds by a miraculous influence accompanying the sight of this object, and be cured of your spiritual disease, by an influence connected with trust reposed in him whose crucifixion is here typified. That the Passover had a like double meaning, is unquestionable. That it was a festival commemorative of the deliverance from Egypt, appears from its taking its origin from the circumstances of that deliverance, and from the express

command given the Jews to teach their posterity to make remembrance of that event in celebrating it, Ex. 13: 8, and 14. But that it had also a prefigurative meaning, pointing forward to Christ, as the spotless Lamb, sacrificed for the sins of the world, I need not stop to prove. It is said, 1 Cor. 5: 7, "Christ our passover was sacrificed for us." Here then is a double import of this ordinance. I might here go more into detail, but it is not necessary. It will not be questioned that these, and many of the Hebrew ordinances, had a double meaning, and that they were a system of language, through which God spoke as by a perpetual voice to his ancient people.

Should it be said, that the import of ordinances was verbally explained in the sacred writings, while verbal predictions are accompanied with no such explanations; it may be answered, that commemorative ordinances are indeed usually accompanied with explanations of their commemorative import; but that the Old Testament is very sparing of explanations of the specific and exact import of the prefigurative ordinances. Where in the Old Testament is there a comment on the prefigurative import of the brazen serpent, of the passover, of the Aaronic priesthood, or of the sacrifices? It pleased God to reveal, at that age of the world, the system of salvation, so far only as these and such like symbols, wisely constructed, would present it, without any collateral explanations. Where ordinances look forward, they are left to be their own interpreters. The pious Hebrew might gather from the sacrifices the general impression, that without the shedding of the blood of a victim, possessed of certain qualifications represented by the lamb, there could be no remission; yet after all, the knowledge he could have of the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world, was the feeblest glimmer of dawn, compared with that noon-day light which the New Testament pours upon this subject. So far as it affects the question before us, the double meaning of ordinances is no more explained, than that of verbal predictions. The ancient Hebrew had no more intelligible guide to the apprehension of Christ, our passover, than he had to the apprehension of Christ under the name of David, where things asserted of David, the type, were intended to be understood both of the type and the antitype. The obscurity in both cases is similar, and accordant with the nature of the whole Hebrew economy; and