men, who was put in our place, or substituted for us, i. e. "he was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities ;" and so the whole doctrine of the vicarious sufferings of Christ is suggested to our consideration by the name Seth. Enosh (i from to be sick) of course teaches us the doctrine of man's frail and dying state; and by indirect consequence it reminds us of all the duties which are attendant upon such a state and naturally connected with it-a text, therefore, of vast meaning, even of boundless import. And so we might pass on through all the genealogical tables in the first book of the Chronicles; which, when thus treated, instead of being mere genealogies in which the church has now no very special interest, would then become pregnant with a divine and transcendental meaning, and be filled, as one might almost say, "with the fulness of God." In this way, too, we can demonstrate, that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine and for instruction in righteousness. Who then can forbid us to engage in such an excellent work as this? Who can bid us to stop, when thus bending all our powers to vindicate the divine authority and excellence of the Scriptures, and to show that no other book on earth can bear comparison with them, as to adaptedness for conveying, at all times and in every possible manner, both doctrine and practical instruction? Even the least important part of them, (if indeed it is lawful to say that any one part is less important than another), has more of significance, more that is adapted to our edification, than all the other books which the world contains.

If now to all this I should add large professions of most sincere and ardent desires to glorify God by such a view of the Scriptures, and to convince men how he has indeed "magnified his word above all his name;" if I should, at the same time, bestow degrading epithets on all those who

deny the supernatural fulness of meaning and the secondary and spiritual sense of the Scriptures, and insert in every convenient place an inuendo that they are fast verging toward rationalism; should I not secure an attentive hearing of many, yea very many, among both laity and clergy? This, or something of much the same tenor, has often been done; it doubtless will be often repeated in future time. Nor is the man who does this, at all within the grasp of his mystic brethren, who call themselves more sober. There is, as we have seen, no court of appeal. And the man who outgoes all his competitors in the extension of the spiritual or occult sense of the Scriptures, provided the meanings which he gives may tend to edification, is of course entitled to a precedence in the great and good work (as many deem it) of rendering the Bible edifying every where and to the highest degree; and all this, too, in such a way as to show that it is a book unlike all other books, and has a fulness of doctrine and instruction which are worthy of a God, and which God only could impart to it. On the ground of double or occult sense, the right of such a man to the claim in question cannot be disproved..

The advocates for a double sense, or spiritualizing, will doubtless reply to all this, that 'the abuse of a thing is no good argument against the use of it.' In most cases this is certainly to be conceded. But if a thing is of such a nature that it is all abuse, and must be so, it is a good argument against it. Of such a nature I must believe the practice of mystical interpreters to be. John Bunyan was a man who did not lack genius or piety. Yet he has given to the world a treatise in which he undertakes to show, that not only the temple with its solemn ritual and impressive service was significant of good things to come, but that the parts all and singular of the same were in like manner significant. The vases, the censers, the trays, the snuffers,

yea the snuff itself of the lamps-all, all had an important spiritual meaning. Will you say, that Bunyan was dreaming a second time here, to much less purpose than his first dream which has rendered him immortal? If you do, it were easy to refer you to Origen, to Jerome even, to Augustine, to Cocceius, to Jones of Nayland, and to a host of other men distinguished for talents and piety, who have wandered scarcely less into dreaming regions than Bunyan. When we are gravely told, in many a Commentary, that in the parable of the good Samaritan, the man that travelled from Jerusalem to Jericho through the wilderness, and fell among thieves and was robbed and wounded, represents Adam and his posterity travelling through the wilderness of this world and robbed and wounded by Satan; that the priest and Levite, who passed by without helping him, represent the law which cannot save the sinner and good works and ceremonial observances which cannot help him; that the good Samaritan is Christ; that the oil and wine are the forgiveness and grace of the gospel; and that the gratuitous work of helping the wounded man is a lively emblem of the Redeemer's gratuitous work in respect to sinners-all this, we are solemnly assured, is edifying, it makes the Scriptures profitable for doctrine, and consequently no valid objection can be made against it. Be it so then; but why stop here? Why choose out those parts of the parable which may afford room for tracing imaginary resemblances, and leave the rest as being of no important significance ? What means the setting of the wounded man upon the ass; the bringing him to an inn; the two pence given to the host; the promise of more on the return of the Samaritan? By what rule or principle does the interpreter stop short of these, and leave them out of the category of " things profitable for doctrine ?" Is it not the useful, the edifying, which makes this mode of

spiritualizing lawful? If so, then we may vindicate those, who out of Adam, Seth, Enosh, (1 Chron. 1: 1), bring out the greatest and most important of all gospel-truths and the most important of all the precepts of practical piety. In my apprehension, at least, the latter have as good a claim to our confidence as the interpreters of the parable of the good Samaritan, who have just been described.

How

We have heard of a preacher, who selected from Ezra 1:9 the clause nine and twenty knives, for a text. he made this profitable for doctrine, we are not told. We have read of still more extraordinary spiritualizing. The fact to which we refer is briefly this: in Gen. 29: 2 it is said, that Jacob "looked, and behold a well in the field." The spiritual instruction or rather consolation deducible from this, was expressed by the preaching interpreter in the following pathetic exclamation: "What a mercy that the field was not in the well!"

But enough of examples. And if I am again told, as I doubtless shall be, that these only serve to expose the abuse of the inóvoia; I must again reply by asking the advocate of the principle in question to point me to the tribunal, which decides, or has authority to decide, where the limits of such a practice must be drawn.

Once more; I am not able to satisfy my own mind, why merely a double sense should be assigned to various passages of Scripture. Why not three, seven, ten, or (with the Jewish Rabbies) forty-nine senses? Fancy can make out Why not give to the

all these, with little or no difficulty. Scripture, as Cocceius maintained we should do, all the meanings which it is in any way capable of bearing?

The only pertinent answer that can be made to this is, that it is not usual, even where fancy is permitted to play a conspicuous part in the interpretation of ambiguous sayings, to make out more than a double sense; consequently

it would be against usage to assign so many meanings to the Scripture. But this answer will hardly suffice. It is not usual, in respect to any grave and honest discourse, to make out more than one meaning to words; but the advocates of double sense have brought us into company with the interpreters of enigmas, charades, conundrums, and heathen oracles of double entendre, and invited us to keep pace with them. If we must do so, then why may we not at least make out this distinctive claim for the Scriptures, viz. that their superiority to every thing of such an equivocal nature is manifest, by the fact that the language of the inspired books is capable of bearing all possible senses, be they more or less? If the divine origin of the Bible cannot be proved in this manner, it must be conceded that we may at least show, in such a way, that it is a book different from all others which the world contains.

Let me add, in the fifth place, that the mode of interpretation against which I am contending, can never be relied on for the establishment of any scriptural doctrine or precept.

and

Few, if any, of the advocates of double sense will venture to assert, that we can depend on an occult sense to establish any position of importance. The most that is usually claimed for this method of interpretation is, that it pleases the fancy, excites and gratifies the imagination, thus makes the truth more agreeable to many minds. Yet the occult meaning, in order to have any degree of confidence reposed in it, must harmonize with those texts of Scripture which are plain and direct. Indeed, the bare statement of the whole matter affords evidence enough, that we can never pretend to rely on an occult meaning as the foundation of an argument, by which any, even the least important, position is established. The simple question is, then, whether we shall resort to allegorizing or spiritualizing, merely to gratify the fancy, or amuse the