subject to his view in certain events and certain language, although men, even those who were actors in those events and writers of that language, might not have suspected that they were instruments whose agency God was employing with respect to events exceedingly remote and unutterably important.

But, it may be asked, might not an ingenious mind discern many and striking resemblances between any ancient book and some comparatively modern events? And would this prove a designed connection between that book and those events? In reply, it may be said, that between any secular book and a whole system of events, subsequently occurring, such resemblances cannot be pointed out as are noticed in the New Testament. There may be casual and insulated instances; but a system of resemblances so numerous and so striking, is without a parallel in any human compositions. Nor can we, with justice, trace the notice of these resemblances in the New Testament to any weakness of mind, or to any fondness for conceit; these notices are made in the same sober, unvarnished, unboasting style, which pervades the other parts of the New Testament. Nor can so many, and so various, and so happy adaptations in the language of the Old Testament, and events therein recorded, to events in the New Testament, be satisfactorily accounted for, without acknowledging the same divine hand operating in the composition of the Old Testament, and in the events recorded in the New.

It may again be asked, whether the view now presented does not require, that the writers of the Old Testament should have had before their minds several distinct objects, as meant by their words, and thus that they did not use their language with one definite meaning, as other men do, and as they would be understood as doing, by their contemporaries? This inquiry has already been anticipated in the remark, that our experience does not qualify us to make such an objection as is contained in it. But something additional may be said. There is a twofold view which we ought to take of the Old Testament. In one view, it is the word of men (inspired men, no doubt), as having been conceived and written by men, and as embodying thoughts which were present to their minds. In another view, it is the word of God, proceeding from the Divine Mind, and employed to express cer

tain things which God designed to express. In the former of these views, it may have had a very limited signification, adapted to the shortness of human sight and the narrowness of human thought. In the latter view, it may have been unspeakably comprehensive, and the real fulness of its meaning may be capable of being known only by God's informing us through some authorized agents. If his authorized agents have given us information, that the language of the Old Testament had reference to subjects, more in number and greater in importance than would appear to have been contemplated by the human authors, we may well accede to their representations. Under some event, and in language exactly fitted to that event, God may have designed that some other event should be intimated, and when that other event takes place, the correspondence between it and the previously arranged language may become remarkably striking, and may require that divine foresight be acknowledged in the event which Divine Providence has brought to pass in a manner so conformed to a previously existing statement.

The

This twofold view of Scripture, while it shows the propriety of variously applying Scripture under divine guidance, avoids also all the perplexities and difficulties which are connected with double meanings, designed to be expressed in the same passage. It may also be remarked, that this copiousness of signification in God's book, manifested too by his authorized agents, is analogous to the copiousness of application which he makes of any one event, or system, brought into existence by men. Sabbath school system is a human contrivance, very simple and definite in its character. But how variously does God make it bear on his spiritual kingdom! And who can doubt that God saw its ever-multiplying ramifications, and designed it to have all the numerous applications which, in the progress of events, it has received? The copiousness of application in the Holy Scriptures, or rather their exact adaptation to remote and immensely important purposes in the divine government, is one of the circumstances which give the sacred volume a place among the other acknowledged works of God.

It is also the case, that the writers of the New Testament, when they thus employ the Old, do not always mean

to explain the language which they quote. The language may have had reference to a subject different from, yet in some respects resembling, that on which they are writing; and they mean to say, not that the Old Testament writer had in view the same object which they now have, but that when the Old Testament writer employed that language in reference to the subject which was before his mind, God was designing that that very language should have a far more full and striking accomplishment. They do not, then, always explain the prophecy, or the remark, which they quote; but they apply the language, and from its remarkable applicableness, they perceive that God did, in some sense, have a view, in that language, to the events which were to be recorded in the New Testament. As examples, see Matt. 1: 22, 23. 2: 17, 18. 2:23. 3:3.

The twofold view of the Old Testament, mentioned above, appears to be recognized in the New Testament. In Acts 1: 16, the Holy Ghost is mentioned as having spoken by the mouth of David. David, in the passages there referred to, may have had in view solely his enemies who, by their unjustifiable opposition to him, would bring on themselves the displeasure of God; while the Holy Ghost so arranged the language, that the doom of Judas, the man who was so signally to oppose the great antitype of David, the Messiah, would be most remarkably expressed by it; and by the developments of divine providence it would become evident, that the events pertaining to the Messiah were present to the Holy Spirit, as well as nearer events were present to the mind of David. Another illustration may be found in John 11:51. The high priest Caiaphas had given bloody counsel respecting Jesus, regarding it as expedient that one man should be put to death rather than that the whole people should perish. The evangelist John acknowledges the influence of God as specially operating in regard to the language used by Caiaphas; and considers the high priest, while giving vent to his murderous feelings, as also expressing a sentiment which was really in the mind of God, and which was in accordance with his plan. Caiaphas meant one thing; God meant another. So in the Old Testament, the writers expressed their views; and God intended their

language to be also applicable to far higher events.

Com

pare also, Paul's manner of speaking, in Gal. 3: 22-31; and his reasoning in the ninth chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews.

If

To what extent, it may be asked, are we warranted in explaining the word of God as having more applications than one, or as having an allegorical signification, or an interior sense, not at first obvious? Under inspired guidance, it may be answered, we can proceed safely. we have not inspired guidance, it is well to exercise extreme caution, if not entirely to forbear seeking for additional senses. And yet one can hardly avoid thinking that the manner of the New Testament writers furnishes us specimens of their views of the Old Testament in general, as well as applications of the particular passages which they have quoted; and, consequently, that there are other passages which, if they had had occasion, they would have employed in a similar way. Where the language, for instance, is remarkably adapted to the new dispensation, we shall probably be safe in a modest, not in an assured, application of it in that manner. But we are greatly in danger of mistaking; and when we have not inspired guidance, we should proceed with much caution. As an instance which may be applied to the Messiah, in perfect harmony with the New Testament writers' manner of applying the Old Testament, reference may be made to the seventy-second Psalm. It is not quoted in the New Testament; but such are its descriptions, such is its language throughout, that an interpreter is well justified in regarding the person and the kingdom of the Messiah as being in the view of the Holy Spirit, when that Psalm was composed. Just views, then, of this whole subject, while they readily embrace all the fulness of the Old Testament, lead not to the least extravagance in interpreting the word of God.

It may, perhaps, be suggested, that there is no need of resorting to such a principle as has now been exhibited, in order to account for the use which the New Testament writers make of the Old; for we have only to consider the New Testament writers as being strongly tinctured with the spirit of their nation, and, therefore, disposed to ascribe an allegorical and mystical signification to the Old Testament writings; and as the communities, for which they

VOL. IV.-NO. XVI.

62

wrote, consisted so much of Jews, this manner of treating the Old Testament would not be objected to. That the Jews were inclined, at some periods of their history, to attach spiritual, or mystical senses to their Scriptures, and that to an unjustifiable extent, must be granted. But that there was no proper foundation to the practice of referring much of the Old Testament to the spiritual glories of the Messiah and his dispensation, has never yet been shown. That which was really essential to a just view of their sacred writings, may have been greatly abused among them; still we may learn from the manner of the New Testament writers, what is the proper view, and how extensively it may be applied. But if the New Testament writers had erred in their application of Old Testament passages, how unhappy would have been their situation, had some intelligent hearer, or reader, disputed their arguments and sustained the charge of their abusing the sacred volume! The arguments, as well as the opinions, of the New Testament writers, are sound. And though they, like any other men, might use the argumentum ad hominem, and thus silence an opponent, it is hardly conceivable that they would have employed a system of argumentation which was essentially unsound. An argumentum ad hominem they would acknowledge to be such; but they applied Old Testament passages in a certain way, not because their adversaries so applied them, but because they themselves believed that they ought to be thus applied. And, doubtless, as in the case of our Lord, when he drew instruction respecting the Messiah from thẻ hundred and tenth Psalm, they often presented new views, which grew directly out of a proper explanation of the book of God.

Ꭱ.