β. But sometimes the Sense of Scripture is Composite, made up of the Literal already declared, signified through Words, and of the Mystical or Spiritual, signified by the typical or parabolic Matter. That is, that is the Mystical Sense that is not indicated immediately by the Words themselves, but by the Matter signified by those words, whether proper or figurative: indeed, it is referred to something other than that which the Words immediately signify. Now, it is called Mystical, inasmuch as it indicates something more abstruse and sublime than the Words manifest: and Spiritual, inasmuch as it represents a Spiritual matter.
1. For the illustration of this Composite Sense, the word of Jonathan to the boy concerning the seeking of his arrows, 1 Samuel 20:21, 22, is wont to be adduced, for those words of the order of Jonathan had a simple and literal sense with respect to the boy; but at the same time they were symbolic and had a latent signification with respect to David. 2. For the confirmation of the same Composite Sesne from the Literal and the Mystical Parables are effective, in which through the Literal and Grammatical Sense, which the letters make manifest, some other spiritual things, which the Spirit especially intends, is represented to the intellect; in such a way that the thing, first signified by the letter, is a sign and figure of the thing intended by the Spirit: whence then the Sense emerges, not as twofold, but as one composite, so to speak; and in no way would one be able to be said to follow the mind of the Spirit, who wills to adhere to the external σχέσει/habit of the Parable: but through the literal representation of a corporeal matter we are introduced to an acquaintance with the more secret mind of the divine Author: concerning Parable and establishing the correct interpretation of them consult GLASSIUS’ Philologiam Sacram, book II, part I, tractate II, section V, pages 217-226; and SALDENUS’ Otia Theologica, book IV, Exercitation V, pages 691-703. Also especially substantiating this are the many examples of Typical Predictions, in which are to be considered two parts, as it were, of one and the same Sense intended by the Holy Spirit, who under the letter had regard to a mystery, so that the full Sense is not able to be had, unless the truth of the antitype is joined with the truth of the type: for example, in Exodus 12:46, the law concerning not breaking the bones of the paschal Lamb pertains both to the paschal Lamb in a figure, and to Christ in a mystery; which John taught in John 19:36; if this typical relationship of the unbroken bones of the Lamb to Christ be conjoined with the external observance of the law concerning the Lamb, only then is the sense fully exhausted. The promise made to David, 2 Samuel 7:12-14, had regard both to Solomon and to Christ, comparing Acts 2:29, 30; Hebrews 1:5. Therefore, it has a Composite Sense, which would be fulfilled by degrees, partly and less perfectly in the type, more fully and perfectly in the antitype, in which manner in the end the one Sense, intended by the Spirit, determines every complement: which against others, who here consider the Messiah alone, our AUTHOR defends, Exercitationibus Textualibus VII, Part VI. Add Hosea 11:1, on which passage our AUTHOR is to be seen, both in his Commentario ad Prophetas minors, and especially in his Exercitationibus Textualibus, Part I, Exercitation XX, § 3, in which our AUTHOR distinctly teaches that the latter words of this verse, וּמִמִּצְרַ֖יִם קָרָ֥אתִי לִבְנִֽי׃, and out of Egypt I called my son, are not able to be torn from what things precede and the remaining context in such a way that they might be referred directly to Christ, as if they were spoken of Him alone: but that they literally have regard undoubtedly to the Israelite people and their past deliverance out of Egypt. But, when Matthew in Matthew 2:15, narrating the lodging of the Infant Christ with His parents in Egypt unto the death of Herod, adds, ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου, λέγοντος, Ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son: from this formula of citation our AUTHOR at the same time concludes that Israel, who on account of distinguishing love was called the Son of God, by special divine love having been preserved for a time from death in Egypt, and afterwards summoned from there by divine calling, while yet undeveloped and weak; in these things in the writing of Hosea it is to be observed that he exhibits a type of the Messiah, the only begotten and most beloved Son of the Father, who from the sword of Herod was to be hidden in Egypt, and from there to be recalled into Canaan, while yet a boy, but loved above all others. And so he observes that, what was already of old fulfilled literally in Israel as a type, in a mystery its true and full fulfillment followed through the recalling of Christ out of Egypt; in such a way that its entire fulfillment according to the intention of God was not previously obtained. While the remaining things, which follow in Hosea and involve notable imperfection, as our AUTHOR observes, ought on the other hand to be applied to the type alone, not to the antitype, because the people of Israel did not represent the person of Christ in all things, whom Matthew teaches by his citation to have been portrayed in this calling out by analogy. But, that the speech is concerning Messiah alone in Hosea 11:1, in the words נַעַר/child and בְּנִי, my son, with an addressed at the same time directed to the Jewish people, GERHARD TEN CATE judges, translating the text, While He was a child, O Israel! then I loved Him, and out of Egypt have I called my Son. Now, he believes that God the Father thus speaks of Messiah with respect to the last words of Hosea 10, in the morning time the King of Israel in perishing perished, in which, that Christ was to be cut off from the Jews, as the most wicked wickedness to be commited by them, he thought to be predicted, with the context painstakingly drawn there from Hosea 10:9; when he maintains that Hosea 11:1 is subjoined to what was immediately preceding, so that the crime of the Jews, repudiating and murdering the true Messiah, might be magnified, by the opposite love and care of God the Father toward Him in His infantile state according to His humanity for the good of His people, and from the divine excellence of this child, inasmuch as He was also the proper Son of God. If these things flow in a clear stream, the Composite Sense of Hosea 11:1 should not be admitted: but indeed there is not time now to undertake an examination of this exegesis: let the Reader compare with those passages of our AUTHOR cited above GERHARD TEN CATE’S Epistolam de Rebus Jesu Christi ex Prophetis ad Leonardum Offerhaus, after Offerhaus’ Spicilegiorum historico-chronologicorum, pages 697-740.
 Gerhard Ten Cate (1699-1749)
 Hosea 10:15: “So shall Bethel do unto you because of your great wickedness (מִפְּנֵ֖י רָעַ֣ת רָֽעַתְכֶ֑ם): in a morning shall the king of Israel utterly be cut off (בַּשַּׁ֕חַר נִדְמֹ֥ה נִדְמָ֖ה מֶ֥לֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃).”
 Leonard Offerhaus (1699-1779) was a German historian. He was a professor of history at Groningen, beginning in 1725.