some which belong only to the Body, and some again which pertain to both" (Alexander, Later Propheda of Isaiah, p. 170). See Isaiah (Book of).
Another example is Psalm xvi, which, although in the first instance, as explained by all good commenta- tors (e. g. Calvin, De Wette, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Alexander, Olshausen, Hupfeld), describes a pious suf- ferer in peril of death, either David himself or some other, yet in a higher sense passes through one stage of fulfilment in every pious sufferer ; while its highest fulfilment is in Christ, as is proved by the quotations of Peter and Paul in the Acts of the Apostles. The same may be said of Psalm xxii : few will deny that it has reference, chiefly or in its highest import, to Christ, the head of the righteous afiiicted ; but verses 6, 9, 10 demonstrate that it has a literal application to the writer's own sacred sorrows. We may also point to Isaiah xl-lxvi as a more extended example. We cannot doubt that this portion of the book refers pri- marily to a historical object, the exile, and the deliv- erance of Israel from Babylon. But along with the description of this restoration there is a deeper and higher reference, namely, to the time of the Messiah, in which comes spiritual deliverance. The two arc spoken of together, and blended in the description givep. The prophecy wm /ulfiUed in the last; it had an incipient fulfilment, if we may be allowed the phrase, in the first. It matters not whether the prophet himself distinctly intended to speak of both ; it is highly probable that he had no very clear percep- tion of the manner in which his language would be verified by history in its highest sense. The descrip- tions are of such a kind as to forbid their exclusive application either to the New dispensation or to events in the Old ; both must be combined in order to bring out the true interpretation ; they relate both to histor- ical events under the Old, and spiritual ones under the New economy. Nor are the references to the his- torical and the spiritual kept apart ; the one merges into the other ; in some parts the descriptions point to the two as successive, while in others they embrace both together. See Psalms.
A common objection to this mode of interpretation is that it is arbitrary to apply one part of a prophecy to a historical person or place, and another part of the same passage spiritually ; to interpret one verse liter- ally and another emblematically ; for example, to say that David is meant in this clause, and Christ in that. Those who do not explain the same prophecy through- out in one consistent method are justly liable to this objection: the two methods, the historical and the spiritual, or the nearer and more remote, should be adopted together and applied throughout the same passage, except that in certain parts a preponderance may be allowed to one or the other import; while those who prefer the historical alone, or the spiritual alone, should adhere to each respectively : it is wrong to run fh>m one to another in the same prophecy, un- less there be evident marks of a transition. This ob- jection, therefore, does not lie against the legitimate use of the twofold-reference scheme, but against its abuse.
As to the other objection urged against this method of interpretation, that it opens the door for many, even an indefinite number of senses, as well as two, it may be sufficient to reply, in the first place, that if there be evidence of several senses inhering in a given prophe- cy, they ought, of course, all to be admitted, however numerous they may be. But, secondly, there will rarely, if ever, be found to exist more than two such senses, and these not really distinct, but related to each other as special and general, as local and univer- sal, or as primary and secondary, as germinal and complete, as historical and spiritual, etc. In short, one event is to be viewed as the type of another, be- cause involving, the same principle in the divine econ^ omy ; e. g. the " Man of Sin" (q. v.) is Antichrist as a
DOXJBT
876
DOUGLAS
spiritaal antagonist, whether in the form of the Seleacid persecutors, pagan Rome, or the papacy. See Little Horn. See Davidson, in Home's Introduction^ new ed. ii, 458 sq. ; on the other side, Stuart, in the ^/tc. Repoi. 1881, p. 68 sq. ; in the BibUotheca Sacra, 1852, p. 459 sq. ; comp. Stier, Word* of Jesus, i, 481 sq., Am. ed. ; Meth, Quart, Bemew, April, 1867, p. 195 sq. See Hermemeutics.
Doubt (dubito, to go two ways). "Man knows some things and is ignorant of many things, while he is in doubt as to other things. Doubt is that state of mind in which we hesitate as to two contradictory con- clusions, having no preponderance of evidence in favor of either. Philosophical doubt has been distinguistied as provisional or definitive. Definitive doubt is scepti- dsm. Provisional or methodical doubt is a voluntary suspending of our judgment for a time, in order to come to a more clear and sure conclusion. This was first given as a rule in philosophical method by Des Cartes, who tells us that he began by doubting every- thing, discharging his mind of all preconceived ideas, and admitting none as clear and true tiU he had sub- jected them to a rigorous examination. Doubt is some degree of belief, along with the consciousness of igno- rance, in regard to a proposition. Absolute disbelief implies knowledge : it is the knowledge that such or such a thing is not true. If the mind admits a propo- sition without any desire for knowledge concerning it, this is credulity; if it is open to receive the proposi- tion, but feels ignorance concerning it, this is dovibt. As knowledge increases, doubt diminishes, and belief or disbelief strengthens (Taylor, Elements ofThougkty* —Fleming, Vocabulary (f Philosophy, Phila. 1860. See Des Cabtes ; Scepticism.