As I know of no instances occurring in the Prophets more difficult of application than those above noticed, I do not think it necessary to offer any thing more on this subject. Proceed we now, therefore, to other matter connected with the interpretation of prophecy.

SECTION III.

ON THE DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY, &c.

FROM allusions made in the New Testament to the typical or symbolical character of a considerable part of the Old, it has been supposed by some, that not only has prophecy of every sort a double sense, but also, that the very histories of the Old Testament will admit of a double interpretation. Let us consider how far these notions are justifiable: and let us begin with prophecy. Those predictions, to which we have given the general title of particular prophecy, cannot, in the nature of things, admit of more than one fulfilment.*

In Mr. Forster's book, noticed above, we have a direct appeal to the "double accomplishment" of prophecy, as it is sometimes termed: and, as Mr. Forster's hypothesis rests very much on this as a principle, it may be worth while to see what he has to advance in favour of it. "In each progeny," says he, (p. 71, first vol.), " the promise of Jehovah has, in point of fact, had a double accomplishment, a temporal and a spiritual," &c. Again, at p. 88, "The promise to Isaac had, in point of fact, first a temporal fulfilment in the establishment of his race in Canaan; and, secondly, a spiritual fulfilment in the advent of the Messiah....In the promise to Ishmael....there seems to be just reason to look for an analogous double fulfilment.... a full and exact parallel is presented in the appearance of Mahomet." Let us see how this will hold. In the first place, then, a promise is certainly made to Abraham, that in his seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. See Gen. xii. 3; xviii. 18; xxii. 18. Acts, iii. 25. Gal. iii. 8. We may therefore conclude at once, that a spiritual blessing was here intended. Turn now to Gen. xiii. 14-17, and there we shall find the temporal blessing, or the promise made, that the land of Canaan shall be given to him and to his seed for ever. See also chap. xii. 7; xv. 18; xvii. 8. We have then for these two events two distinct promises, and these given on more occasions than one. There can be no necessity here, consequently, to give a double interpretation or to suppose a double accomplishment, to belong to any one of these promises; both things are distinctly promised, and both have been distinctly fulfilled. In the second place, as there is no necessity whatever here for a double interpretation, neither can there, on Mr. Forster's own shewing, in the case of the temporal promise made to Ishmael, (no spiritual one being at all mentioned).

- to

Take, for example, the predictions respecting our blessed Lord, that he was to be born of a virgin,-to be of the seed of Abraham, of the house and lineage of David,—to be born at Bethlehem, to be despised and rejected of men, suffer for the sins of many,—and by his vicarious suffering to justify many. These predictions, I think, all will allow will admit of only one application and sense. The same may be said of the prediction of delivery from Egypt,—of the possession of Canaan,-of the captivity to Babylon,of the general delivery by Cyrus from this, of the final dissolution of the Jewish polity, -the opening of the Church to the Gentiles, and innumerable others.

The typical part of the ceremonial law involved, not general, but particular, prophecy. It all shadowed forth Christ: its acts were equivalent in bearing to verbal declarations enouncing the same things; and, as these can admit of but one interpretation, the symbols which were their equivalents can admit of no more. A most admir

But, Mr. Forster finds certain resemblances in the cases of these two persons (Isaac and Ishmael), which he terms analogy or parallelism; and, he then argues, that as these remarkable coincidences appear as facts, it is also probable, that as Isaac's promise included a spiritual dominion, so must that also given to Ishmael; and, by way of confirmation of this, he offers the consideration, that Ishmael was circumcised just as Isaac was, i. e. both received the patriarchal religion. My remark is: If we are to argue from resemblances only, then may we conclude, that a counterfeit and a genuine coin have equally received the stamp of authority, or, that an impostor, no less than a true prophet-the wolf in wool, just as much as the true member of Christ's sheepfold, bears about him the mark of the heavenly Shepherd. But I leave this inatter. In other places (pp. 130-31, &c.) we are told that we must compare the promises with the events, &c., which is unobjectionable when accompanied with the other considerations necessary for the interpretation of prophecy; but, when standing alone, it will constitute nothing more than mere resemblances, which may occur again and again, and so leave promises and predictions as vague and pliable as any theorist on earth can wish. Many and overwhelming objections may be opposed even to Mr. Forster's resemblances, of which, however, he seems not to be aware; but these I leave to others: my only concern is with Mr. Forster's principles, and these I believe are fallacious.

*Col. ii. 17; Heb. x. 1.

We meet, however, with instances of apparently double interpretation in the Scripture itself. See 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10; 1 Tim. v. 18, cited from Deut. xxv. 4; Gal. iv. 22-26, taken from Gen. xviii. 10, &c. I will only say, with regard to these and similar passages, that if they were originally given

able comment on these has been given to us by St. Paul; which, upon mature consideration, will, I think, be found to concur with the views here offered. It has been usual, however, to step out from these ceremonial and symbolical representations, and to take both persons and circumstances peculiar to the Jews, as typical also of Christ. Moses, we know, was in many respects like Christ;* but it will not hence follow, as far as I can see, that he was therefore typical of Christ. Nor does the Scripture allow us to make even David, Solomon, or any other person, mentioned in its pages, typical of the Messiah. David, it is true, was termed the anointed, or Messiah; and so was every priest, prophet, and king, among the Jews. David, moreover, held the kingdom which was peculiarly Christ's: but then, in this sense, he was only Christ's vicegerent, not a type of him. David, too, in many of his Psalms, passes from his own sufferings to those of the Messiah; from his own conquests to those of his Lord; and so do all the prophets: it is a sort of writing peculiar to the Scriptures. Our Lord often passes on from the circumstances around him, to those of a more sublime and spiritual nature, as in his address about the labourers being sent into God's harvest. But these circumstances cannot be cited as constituting types: there is something, undoubtedly similar in the circumstances, and on this account they are mentioned; but they are not, therefore, either symbolical or typical. They are only

as symbolical, like Isaiah and his children (Is. viii. 18), or Ezekiel, as mentioned above, of which St. Paul had authority sufficient to determine, then must they have been capable of receiving one fulfilment, and no more. It is not in our power either to "speak particularly” (Heb. ix. 5) or definitively now, on many of the things intended to be shadowed out by the ancient system. Enough seems to have been given, on this subject, for the edification of the Church; and if so, it is the duty of Christian teachers to take the safe side in other words, while they anxiously endeavour to inculcate all the truths of Scripture, not to incur the risk of being found guilty of adding thereto, by recurring to the dangerous, but plausible, system of allegorising, which indeed proved so fruitful a source of error in primitive times.

:

* See the parallel cases admirably drawn out by Eusebius, Dem. Evang. lib. iii. § ii.

+ If it be objected, that these circumstances are often termed types (rúra) in the Scriptures themselves; e. g. 1 Cor. x. 6, 11, &c. I answer: My question is not about the word, but the thing meant; and I shall contend,

resemblances, which in the language of poets would be termed similes.

Some arguments, however, have been offered in favour of the double interpretation of prophecy: these we shall now consider. It is said, then, that "throughout the whole of prophetical scripture, a time of retribution and of vengeance on God's enemies is announced. It is called 'the day of the Lord; the day of wrath and slaughter, of the Lord's anger, visitation, and judgment;''the great day;' and 'the last day.' At the same time," it is added, "it is to be observed, that this kind of description, and the same expressions, which are used to represent this great day, are also employed by the prophets to describe the fall and punishment of particular states and empires; of Babylon, by Isaiah, (ch. xiii.); of Egypt, by Ezekiel, (chap. xxx. 2—4; xxxii. 7, 8); of Jerusalem, by Jeremiah, Joel, and by our Lord, (Matt. xxiv.); and in many of these prophecies, the description of the calamity, which is to fall on any particular state or nation, is so blended and intermixed with that general destruction, which, in the final days of vengeance, will invade all the inhabitants of the earth, that the industry and skill of our ablest interpreters have been scarcely equal to separate and assert them."

There is, I think, only one objection to all this, which is: That it states too much in the outset. It takes for granted, that certain expressions can properly refer to only some one great event; and then it states that, notwithstanding this, it is applied also to others; and accordingly concludes that both must be meant; or, that such prophecy must have a double interpretation. But let us examine one or two of the places referred to. First it is used by Isaiah, with reference to this great event whatever that be, and also to the fall of Babylon (chap. xiii.). The first thing we learn in this chapter is, that it relates to Babylon (ver. 1). In the next place, the banner is elevated, a multitude assembled, and these come from a far country. It then is said, "the day of the Lord is at hand:" that is, a day in which he is about to punish some nation (ver. 2-5). In the next

that in such instances similitudes, ensamples, or examples, only were meant ; but not in the sense of the types as set up in the ceremonial law.

place, the terrors which are to accompany this are stated (ver. 6-8). We have the coming of this day again noticed and followed by its consequences, the destruction of sinners, the fall of powers (the stars, constellations, &c. darkened). The punishment of the world (rather the state or empire) for their evil. Man to be purified or rather made scarce. The heavens to be shaken and the earth from its place or station, not out of its place. Then follow the particulars of the war or slaughter; and we are next informed, that the Medes shall do this; and, lastly, that the Babylonians are to be the sufferers, and that here the pride of Babylon shall end. We need not now suppose, therefore, that any thing else whatever, besides this visitation and destruction, is had in view. The prophet is simple and consistent: and the only thing which made him appear to be complex, was the unfounded canon by which it was proposed to interpret him. The next place is Ezek. xxx. 2, 4: but here we have nothing more than vengeance denounced against Egypt, which is termed, the approach of the day of the Lord. And why may it not? Why may not any day of vengeance be so named, particularly when God is to be the executor of such vengeance? But I leave this. Similar denunciations are uttered in chap. xxxii. 7, 8, where it is said that the lights of heaven shall be extinguished over Egypt: alluding perhaps to the general darkness witnessed there in the days of Moses. But no reason can I discover, why we are to look out for a double sense here. The most remarkable, however, of this kind of prophecy is thought to be Isaiah, chap. xxxiv. In the first place, the nations are called upon to hear the declarations of the prophet, the world and all its produce. We are then told that the indignation of the Lord is to fall on all the nations (Diana). Their slain are to be cast out, and the mountains to be bathed in blood. The host of heaven (kingly powers) are next to be laid aside and perish as an untimely fig. In ver. 5, Idumea, and in ver. 6, Bozrah, is mentioned, as places in which this is to happen. At ver. 8, this is, as before, styled the day of the Lord's vengeance: a year in which Zion shall be vindicated. Then follows a general description of the destruction and finally, we are directed to look back to this prediction, in order to be able to attest its truths, and to