clared, that in every place, incense should be offered to the name of the Lord, even a pure offering; intimating, that the holy worship of the Christian church should be presented to Him in every place no less than the Jewish temple.

So also the prevalence of love and harmony among the Jews themselves when they shall be converted to God and delight in Messiah their King, is expressed by a termination of the schism that rent Israel and Judah, and by the total extinction of the former jealousy existing between them (Isaiah xi. 13.)* Similar is the representation given by Hosea i. 11. "Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land for great shall be the day of Jezreel.”

In these and analogous instances, we must strip off the theocratic dress before arriving at the real meaning of the prophecies. Here the envelope does not itself contain real facts or occurrences, as in the majority of symbolical transactions. It serves as a mere covering which the Jew can more readily understand, and beyond which he must look in faith with eyes enlightened by the gospel. The language does not foretel two events, the one of which was adapted by the wisdom of Jehovah to foreshadow the other, and when realised to be an earnest of a more glorious consummation; but it enwraps in Jewish drapery a single transaction more or less progressive. History will often enable us to distinguish between examples of prophecy, where two

* Dr. Henderson, in his able work on Isaiah, appears to us to have mistaken the meaning and application of the prophecy contained in Isaiah xi. 11-16. He refers it to the restoration of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, and not to a period in their history still future. The considerations adduced to support such a view are insufficient to recommend it. The phrase "in that day" (verse 11), though used with some latitude of meaning, manifestly alludes to the time spoken of in the preceding part of the chapter, viz. the period of the Messiah; and we cannot perceive with what propriety it can be supposed to designate a time prior to Christ's coming in the flesh. From the first verse of the eleventh chapter to the tenth, the prophet describes the extension of the Gospel; and when the eleventh verse proceeds with the expression "and it shall come to pass in that day," it naturally refers to the same dispensation as that just spoken of. Dr. Henderson, however, arbitrarily transfers the phrase to the antemessianic days when the Jews were restored to their own country out of Babylon. That the Philistines, Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites are mentioned when now they no longer exist, cannot be an objection to the future aspect of the prophecy in the eyes of those acquainted with the fact that the prophets took a theocratic basis or ground-work for their delineation of spiritual realities belonging to the New Testament church. The ancient enemies of Judah and Israel symbolise the enemies of the Messiah under the economy of grace. They stand as the representatives of his foes to the end of the world.

events are blended together in description, one belonging to the ante-messianic age, and its associate to the times of the Messiah; and where a peculiar dress is employed to depict occurrences belonging to the latter dispensation alone. In the same manner the New Testament, particularly the Apocalypse, contains descriptions of the flourishing state of the Christian church during the Millennial period in figurative words derived from the past theocratic condition of the Jews. (See chapter xxi. 1, 2, 3.)

When symbolical persons or transactions are blended in the description with their spiritual counterpart, it is observable, that the features which more appropriately belong to the one are sometimes made prominent, and again those peculiarly applicable to the other. Occasionally, the language swells out in so exalted a strain, that theocratic objects recede; leaving their spiritual associates to fill the eye and heart of the seer. At other times, the former seem to have occupied their natural position in the foreground. It is vain, however, to endeavour to separate in exegesis the representations that may be supposed strictly to belong to each. The same language usually applies to both; for although it be flattened by referring it wholly to the type, the theocratic basis cannot well be excluded. We are not concerned to rebut the objection of arbitrariness advanced against this method of exposition, as if it were uncertain and unsatisfactory. It is objected, for example, that it assigns one part of a psalm to David, and another, to David's greater Son.* But a

* Thus Professor Stuart, after attaching to this mode of interpretation the objectionable phrase "double sense," proceeds to say, "This scheme explains so much of the Psalm (40th) as will most conveniently apply to David, as having a literal application to him; and so much of it as will conveniently apply to the Messiah, it refers to him, Truly a great saving of labour in investigation, and of perplexity and difficulty also, might apparently be made, if we could adopt such an expedient! But the consequences of admitting such a principle should be well weighed. What book on earth has a double sense, unless it is a book of designed enigmas! And even this has but one real meaning. The heathen oracles indeed could say: Aio te, Pyrrhe (Æacida), Romanos posse vincere (vincere posse); but can such an equivoque be admissible into the oracles of the living God? And if a literal and an occult sense can, at one and the same time, and by the same words, be conveyed, who that is uninspired shall tell us what the occult sense is? By what laws of interpretation is it to be judged? By none that belong to human language; for other books than the Bible have not a double sense attached to them."- Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Excursus xx. Mr. Alexander writes in a like strain. "In most cases the advocates of this theory present us, not with a double sense, a literal and a spiritual in each verse, but with two distinct subjects, of which now one and then the other is taken up. Thus in Psalm xxii. for instance, instead of showing that every verse refers to David in one sense, and to the Messiah in another, we have the Psalm cut into fragments, of which

psalm may be expounded of both throughout; describing first the type in a lower, and next the antitype in a higher strain. Now that Christ has come, the latter should be our chief concern. The Messiah's person and kingdom ought most to fill our minds. The scaffolding of a former economy has been taken down; the building itself rises before us in sacred majesty; and to it our eyes should be turned. We may indeed admire the wisdom of Deity in adapting his mode of instruction to the infantine state of such as lived under a former dispensation, and behold with reverential wonder the drapery employed to shade from their weak vision the glories of the Redeemer; but inasmuch as we live amid the realities of His kingdom, it most befits us to contemplate the objects imperfectly delineated by former symbols.

But it may be asked, how are we to know when a passage of the Old Testament has this twofold reference ?-how are we to discover when it alludes to Messiah alone, and when to a symbolical personage besides? The only sure criterion is the authority of Scripture itself. On this point the New Testament must be our infallible guide. I am aware, that the New Testament necessarily renders prominent that side of the picture which relates to Christ and his times; and that it does not mark with equal distinctness the symbolising person or transaction. But the ordinary means used for determining the meaning of paragraphs and passages will determine, whether the original passage speaks of an individual object or event prefigurative of future realities under a spiritual economy. The preceding observations may serve to shew, that the language applied to all types is peculiar, and cannot be explained like that of ordinary writings. The greater part of prophecy being typical, falls under the same category. Hence the structure and form belonging to it require an exegesis adapted to themselves.*

this is held to refer only to David, and that only to the Messiah. Of such a mingling of subjects, instances do occur in the prophetic Scriptures, but to speak of this as a double sense is plainly absurd.” — The Connexion and Harmony of the Old and New Testaments, by W. Lindsay Alexander, M.A., page 224, note. We are persuaded that the language of these writers is directed against an important truth, which they look at with distorted view, and unceremoniously denounce.

*See Dr. J. P. Smith's work, "On the Principles of Interpretation as applied to the Prophecies of Holy Scripture," 2d edition, London, 1831; a masterly production, proceeding from a most accomplished writer.

CHAPTER IV.*

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION.

ALLEGORICAL interpretation, as described by Klausen, does not refer to the signification but to the sense of single terms. According to him, a discourse which expresses a sense different from that which the words employed naturally bear, is said to be allegorical. When the discourse itself is of a figurative character, the interpretation which endeavours to ascertain the sense intended, from the mode of representation employed, is not allegorical. He defines allegorical interpretation to be that which, without any demonstrable or assignable ground, assumes a representation to be figurative; and, in consequence, instead of the proper, supposes another and an improper sense, foreign to the design of the speaker.†

This description is scarcely correct. It should rather be said, that the interpretation in question arbitrarily assumes that a passage has a figurative in addition to its literal sense. An allegorical expositor puts something more into the words of an author than they really contain. He gives them a secondary besides the pri mary meaning; a mystical and mediate in addition to the immediate and direct sense. He does not substitute one sense for another, but supposes one in addition to another, where there is no valid ground for the assumption. If the inspired writer really designed his words to have a primary and secondary representation; that is, if he has made use of allegory, he who explains it according to the mind of the author is not properly styled an allegorical interpreter; but if the expositor take for granted a double sense without cause, and in opposition to the expressed or implied purpose of the Spirit, then according to the approved usage of language he becomes an allegorist. Allegorical interpreters

*This Chapter, which ought more properly to occupy a subsequent place, is inserted here, on account of the very frequent allusion to allegorical interpretation in the writings of the fathers.

Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments, aus dem Dänischen übersetzt, von C. O. Schmidt-Phiseldek, Leipzig, 1841, 8vo, pp. 86-7.

H

regard the ordinary sense of a passage, ascertained in the usual manner, as including in itself a still deeper óvoa, which every reader cannot perceive because he wants the necessary acumen. With such it is usual, neither to cast aside the primary representation, nor to look upon it as entirely useless. They retain it as a veil to the secondary. Nor do they believe that the secondary did not proceed from the writer himself. On the contrary, they maintain that he designed to express it; and that it is an object more worthy of attention than the obvious, literal sense. Here the views of allegorical interpreters and others come into contact. The former assume without proof, that many passages were designed to bear a hidden or secondary, as well as a primary sense; whilst the latter reject the position, and abide by the grammatical meaning alone. The former think, that the writer meant to convey a twofold sense, whilst they can produce no reason for their opinion; the latter, in the absence of any reason, affirm that it is arbitrary to introduce into a passage a sense which they believe to be foreign.

A great truth certainly lies near the foundation of the allegorical system, viz. that whatever comes not under the cognisance of the senses can only be presented to the mind by the help of signs borrowed from the external world. But, for this, allegorising substitutes another truth, viz. that each and every sensuous object should be considered as expressive of things beyond the sphere of sense. Such a mode of procedure cannot with any propriety be styled interpretation; for it strives to extract from a series of words all that can be conceived to be in them. It spiritualises, where no cause for doing so exists; and, by the aid of pure invention, puts another representation besides the primary into an inspired narrative.

Allegorical interpretation is found among the Persians, Turks, Greeks, and Christians. We shall briefly refer to its origin. It prevailed both in times of high antiquity and in those much more recent; the same in substance, though differently applied according to the feelings of the people among whom it was current, and the degree of mental cultivation at which they had arrived. When the old nations of the east, sunk in barbarism, began to observe the phenomena of nature around them, they were led to notice the connexion of causes and effects. They saw that some things regularly preceded and were necessary to the existence of others. But they were soon perplexed by the multiplicity of ex