his kingdom, we should confine to these sublime subjects, as the sphere to which it exclusively belongs. It is only by such distinctive explication of the several prophecies of Scripture, that we can show, in a satisfactory and convincing manner, when and how they have been fulfilled. And the theory of a double sense is unwarranted, there being no Scripture authority in its favour. Whatever applications are made by one of the Sacred Writers of what had been published by another, whether it be for the purpose of illustration, of excitement, or of confirmation, from no single passage can it be shown that the words, as they stand in the original author, were designed to be taken in more meanings than one."

In regard to the first objection here made, viz. that the theory is unnecessary, we hold this to be in some degree begging the question, and before we are done, we think we shall be able to show that there are passages in reference to which the theory is necessary. The second objection, that it is unsatisfactory, will not hold good, unless it can be shown that there is no evidence which can be brought forward to show that any one passage of holy writ requires to have a double sense conceded to it. If any man can adduce as strong and unexceptionable proof for a third or a fourth sense as we can do for a second, we must of course admit a third or a fourth sense, but till this is done, we are content simply to hold to the double sense. It is objected also, that in all other writings we expect to find one definite sense in which the authors have designed to be understood.' To this Bishop Hurd has fully replied, by showing that there are in the classics several passages which were designed to be taken in a double sense; nay, the particular beauty of which consists in their being so understood. And, besides, are the rules applicable to the writings of men to be held as equally applicable to those dictated by the Spirit of God? Because when a man commits his thoughts to paper, he generally intends to have but one meaning, can it therefore be argued that when men wrote down the words of the Holy Spirit, which they did not themselves understand, these words must also be limited to a single meaning? Lastly, the theory is said to be unwarranted. This again is merely begging of the question. One of the principal arguments of those who hold the double sense,' is that the quotations made by the New Testament writers from the Old, when compared with the purposes for which they are adduced, require that we should believe that they bear a double sense. Of this we shall give a proof by and by.

We can imagine no better practical solution of this question than to select some passage of Scripture which has been alleged to bear a double sense, and to inquire whether it is really possible consistently to interpret it in any other way. For this purpose we take 2 Sam. vii. 11-29. David had purposed to build a temple to Jehovah, and had been encouraged in this design by Nathan the prophet, who was then ignorant of the mind of God upon the matter.

That night, however, God revealed his will to him in a vision, and instructed him to declare it to David, which he accordingly did in these words: Also the Lord telleth thee that he will make thee an house. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity I will chastise him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: but my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.' Now there are but three ways of understanding this passage. Either it must relate solely to Solomon, or solely to Christ, or it must have a double sense,' relating both to the one and the other. We presume that none will attempt to refer it solely to Solomon, and thereby exclude it from being in any sense a prophecy of Christ. And that it cannot be referred to Christ to the entire exclusion of Solomon seems also evident; for the prophecy was delivered for the purpose of assuring David that he was not to build the temple, but that his son was; and this can only mean Solomon. If it be maintained that the only son of David' here alluded to is Christ, then the import of the prophecy must evidently be, Thou shalt not build me a temple, but the Messiah, who shall come forth out of thy loins, shall build me a spiritual temple.' And if this was the import of it received by David, we cannot well see how he should have regarded it otherwise than as a prohibition to build a temple at all. But unquestionably David regarded it as referring to Solomon, for in his charge to him on his death-bed, he says to his son, with evident reference to this prediction, Keep the charge of the Lord thy God to walk in his ways, that the Lord may continue his word which he spake concerning me, saying, If thy children take heed to their way to walk before me in truth, with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee, said he, a man on the throne of Israel.' (2 Sam. ii. 3, 4.) Solomon also understood it to be a promise to himself, for he writes to Hiram-'I purpose to build an house unto the name of the Lord my God, as the Lord spake unto David my father, saying, Thy son whom I will set upon the throne in thy room, he shall build a house unto my name.' (2 Sam. v. 5.) And God himself seems to sanction this interpretation, for he says to Solomon, Concerning this house which thou art in building, if thou wilt walk in my statutes, and execute my judgments, and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I perform my word with thee which I spake unto David thy father.' (2 Sam. vi. .6) Thus it is conclusively established that this remarkable prophecy was regarded at the time it was delivered (and was in

6

tended to be so regarded) as having an immediate reference to Solomon. But the apostle quotes a portion of it as a prophecy of Christ, (Heb. i. 5.) and thus gives us warrant for a double sense. And in this double sense even David seems to have interpreted it; for while, as we have seen, he regarded it as bearing a primary reference to Solomon, the thanksgiving he offered on the occasion of its being addressed to him, shows, as all commentators admit, that he viewed it as intended to receive its full accomplishment only in the person of the Messiah. One such example is worth a thousand arguments, and we believe it will be long before the opponents of a double sense of prophecy get over the evidence afforded by this passage. But in discarding a double sense of prophecy, Dr Henderson runs into another difficulty. There are in the book of Isaiah many prophecies of Christ which are intimately associated with other predictions which refer to the nations surrounding Jerusalem, at the time when the prophet wrote, and which, according to the theory he has adopted, can have no secondary reference to any events in later times. Such passages as these he is obliged to account for by saying that Isaiah 'ever and anon reverts to the promised Deliverer, and frequently most abruptly, in consequence of some temporal circumstance or event, which the Holy Spirit employed in order to suggest Him and the great salvation to his mind.' P. 95, note. This theory seems to us to be liable to as grave objections as those which our author has brought forward against the double sense.' But we shall give a few examples. In the 10th chapter of Isaiah, there is a prediction regarding the Assyrian, whom Israel is told not to fear, for Jehovah of hosts shall raise up a scourge against him.'' And it shall be (the prophet goes on to say) in that day, that his burden shall be removed from thy shoulder, and his yoke from thy neck: and the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing,'—that is, as Dr. H. interprets in his note, because of the Messiah.' This is one of the instances in which the name of Christ is abruptly introduced; but we put it to our readers whether this statement is sufficient to account for the close connection between the destruction of the Assyrian and the reign of Christ in the 11th chapter, to which our author supposes that the introduction of the Messiah in this passage refers. Whereas, if, admitting a double sense, we suppose that the Assyrian signifies secondarily some enemy of Christ in the latter days, the whole prediction receives a plain and consistent meaning. Again, in the 30th chapter, there occurs the following magnificent description. After narrating the restoration of Israel, the prophet goes on

6

"Behold! the Name of Jehovah cometh from afar,

His anger burneth, and dense is the smoke;

His lips are full of indignation,

And his tongue is like devouring fire.

His breath is like an overflowing torrent,

That reacheth to the very neck;

He will sift the nations in the sieve of vanity;

A bridle that leadeth astray shall be upon the cheeks of the people.
Ye shall have singing as in the night of celebrating the feast,

And joy of heart, like his who marcheth to the pipe,

Going to the mountain of Jehovah, to the Rock of Israel.

For Jehovah shall cause his glorious voice to be heard,

And make visible the descent of his arm,

With furious anger, and a flame of devouring fire,
A flood, a rushing storm, and hailstones.

Verily, by the voice of Jehovah shall Assyria be broken,
He shall smite him with the rod.

And every stroke of the appointed rod

Which Jehovah shall lay upon him,

Shall be accompanied with tabrets and harps;

With tumultuous battles shall he fight against him.

For long ago hath Tophet been prepared;

It hath even been made ready for the king, deep and wide;

The pile thereof is fire and abundance of wood:

The breath of Jehovah, as a torrent of sulphur, shall kindle it."

Dr Henderson explains the Name of Jehovah' to be God interposing in a miraculous manner.' We rather think it signifies Christ, who in several passages is called the Name of Jehovah. He interprets the whole as predicting the destruction of the Assyrian, but at the close of his note he says, 'The vengeance taken on the impious king of Assyria and his army, as here set forth, is emblematical both of the destruction of antichrist, as described in the Apocalypse, and of the wicked generation generally in the world to come.' What is this, we ask, but admitting the double sense of prophecy, against which he has been contending.

These remarks will be found to have an important bearing upon the interpretation of the 18th chapter of Isaiah.. Our readers are doubtless familiar with this remarkable chapter, and probably as familiar with the elaborate and most interesting commentary of Bishop Horsley upon it. It will, therefore, we doubt not, somewhat surprise them to learn, that the sole allusion made by Dr Henderson to the labours of the learned prelate is contained in the following sentence in his note on the first verse:

Many, adopting the idea expressed by the LXX., yãs xhoiwv xréguyes, which is also that dilated upon in the Targ., consider the wings to signify the sails of ships, and apply the passage according to their favourite hypotheses-as Ludovic. Legionensis to the Spanish fleets carrying out the Romish missionaries to South America, and Horsley to Britain employing her navy in carrying back the Jews to Palestine!"

The Bishop surely deserved something more at the hands of a fellow-commentator than a sneer; and we may perhaps succeed in showing that the view of these verses entertained by our author, while certainly it cannot lay claim to the same originality, genius,

or comprehensive grasp of the whole bearing of Scripture, which so eminently distinguish the commentary of Horsley, is at least as open to the charge of absurdity.

Dr Henderson connects this chapter with the concluding verses of the preceding one:

"Ho! the noise of many peoples,

They make a noise like the noise of seas;

The roaring of nations,

Like the roaring of mighty waters, they roar.

As for the nations, like the roaring of many waters they may roar,

But he shall rebuke them, and they shall flee far away;

They shall be chased like the chaff of the mountains before the wind,
And like the whirling stubble before the hurricane.

At the time of evening, behold terror!

Before morning they are no more!

This is the portion of them that spoil us;
The lot of them that plunder us.'

6

These verses he supposes to be a prophecy of the invasion of Sennacherib, and of his sudden and miraculous destruction. And he conjectures that, as this event was not only of immense importance politically, but calculated to draw the attention of the surrounding nations to the character and claims of Jehovah,' messengers would be sent to bear the intelligence to the principal powers, and especially to Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia, against whom the Assyrian expedition had been undertaken. The chapter before us, then, according to our author, predicts the sending of these swift messengers' to Ethiopia, the publishing of the same intelligence far and wide, the impression produced upon the minds of the Ethiopians by the message, and the consequent bringing of a present from them to the altar of Jehovah at Jerusalem. We frankly confess that the most extravagant interpretation of the chapter which has been proposed, we would prefer to this, if reduced to the alternative of making our choice between them. If language so sublime, and images so lofty can indeed be supposed to have no other meaning than that which Dr Henderson here assigns to them, we know not well what defence we can make against the neologian criticisms upon those chapters of our prophet which relate to the great mysteries of our faith-criticisms bolstered up by the hyperbolic nature of oriental imagery and the allegorical style of eastern poetry.'

6

While we admit that the concluding verses of the 17th chapter are closely connected with the 18th, and also concede that they refer primarily to the invasion of Sennacherib and the miraculous destruction of his army, it will be necessary to inquire whether they may not also have a secondary reference to some other event of the latter days. In prosecuting this inquiry, we cannot but be struck with the fact that in every one of the prophecies of Isaiah regarding the Assyrian, the language employed rises to a height of sub