« 上一頁繼續 »
out inaccuracies, which we were not prepared to expeet, and to exhibit allegations and assumed proofs, which we can hardly persuade ourselves could receive the confidence of the learned Professor.
The subjects treated by Dr. Marsh in the present part, are, The Character of typical Representation, the Mode of determining real Types-On the Interpretation of Prophecy-The Importance of the
Prophecies which relate to the Messiah-Examples of literal Prophecies relative to the Messiah-On secondary Senses ascribed to Hebrew Prophecy; and on the accommodated Sense of Prophecy as used in the New Testament.
These are important topics, on which there has been a great deal of vague and fanciful writing, and concerning which the
most eminent Theologians have not maintained a uniform opinion. They are attended with difficulties which it is not easy to solve. We shall see whether Dr. Marsh has gained any advantage over his predecessors in the business of explanation.
At the commencement of the First Lecture of the present series, (the Nineteenth of the Course,) the Professor treats of the connexion between the interpretation of Types and the interpretation of Prophecy. There is, he remarks, a natural connexion between the one and the other : for since a type is not an accidental, but a designed prefiguration of its antitype, it is virtually a prediction of its antitype; and the principles by which types are interpreted, are precisely those which apply to the interpretation of prophecy. The following is his description.
of a type.
• To constitute a type, something more is requisite than a mere resemblance of that, which is called its antitype, For one thing may resemble another, when the things themselves are totally unconnected. But it is the very essence of a type, to have a necessary connexion with its antitype. It must have been designed, and designed from the very beginning, to prefigure its antitype; or it partakes not of that character, which belongs to a real type: a character which implies, not an accidental parity of circumstances, but a pre-ordained and inherent connexion between the things themselves. Where this character is wanting, there is wanting that relation of type to antitype, which subsists between the things of the Old Testament, and the things of the New.'
It would seem therefore, that it is not mere resemblance between objects, that constitutes the one a type of the other, but a direct relation between them, by which the one was originally designed to represent the other. The discovery of this relation, is therefore essential to our recognising in any person, or in any circumstance, a typical character. By what means then shail we be able to arrive at the knowledge of it? A vigorous imagination may discern a number of supposed points of resemVOL. VII. N. S.
blance between different objects, but this proves nothing as to their character of type and antitype, which can be known only as we perceive the intention of an original designer appointing the one to be a representation of the other. The obvious way, therefore, of distinguishing objects which are typical, from those which are not typical, would seem to be, to examine the Old Testament (to which the inquiry is limited) for the purpose of ascertaining the uses and purposes to which the persons and things included in its records, were designated by their author. If, for example, any particular event in the lives of the patriarchs, or in the history of the Israelites, was declared at the time of its occurrence, to be a representation of some other event to take place at a future period, the former would be a type of the latter. Throughout the books of the Old Testament, no object, we believe, apart from those of a strictly prophetical kind, is ever declared at the time of its first introduction into the history, as a rite, or an event, or agent, to be a figure of objects unknown and future. A person therefore whose reading of the Bible should not extend beyond the books of the Old Testament, could not have any knowledge of the typical relation of things, and consequently types would be unknown to him. That design, however, which is stated to be essential to constitute a type, may have been included in the ordination of events, though not declared ; and if; subsequently, the relation between some objects as types, and others, as antitypes, be declared by persons who can satisfy us that they have received information to that effect from the original designer, we are correct in the application of those terms to them. From the following quotation it will be perceived that Dr. Marsh adopts the latter method, as the only one of ascertaining typical objects,
• The only mode of distinguishing the cases where this relation actually exists, from the cases where it is only supposed to exist, is to examine what things in the Old Testament have been represented by Christ and his Apostles as relating to things in the New. For then we have authority for such relation : then we know that one thing was designed to prefigure the other. But without such authority it is absolutely impossible that we should obtain the knowledge which is necessary on this subject. There are no human means, by which we can discover, that what has happened at one period, or in one nation, was originally intended to point out something similar, which should happen at another period or in another nation. The reality of such previous design, the reality of a fore-ordained connexion between a type and its antitype, must depend therefore entirely on the authority of Christ and his Apostles.' p. 2.
The prophetic character of a type he describes in the following words.
• When two apparently independent events, distant from each other
many hundreds, or even some thousands of years, are so connected in the general scheme of Divine Providence, that the one was designed to indicate the other, the one is no less prophetic of the other, than a verbal declaration, that the thing, which forms the antitype, would in due season be accomplished. Whether a future event is indicated by words, or in dicated by other tokens, the connexion of that event with the words in the one case, or the tokens in the other, will be equally a fulfilling of prophecy. We cannot have a more remarkable, or a more important example, than that of the paschal lamb, as applied to the death of Christ. For not only was the paschal lamb sacrificed for the sins of the Jews under circumstances resembling those, under which our Saviour was sacrificed for the sins of the world, but we have the authority of Scripture itself for the assertion, that the sacrifice of the paschal lamb was from the very beginning designed to indicate the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.'
Dr. Marsh is rigid in excluding the operations of fancy from a subject on which he insists we can guide our judgement only by a sacred authority. After this demand, to which we are not objecting, we should not perhaps bave hesitated to give our assent to his statements, were it not a maxim with us never to see with other men's eyes. The Professor adduces the following passages, as instances of that authoritative declaration, which alone can assure us of that original design which gives to objects their typical character.
• When John the Baptist first saw our Saviour, he exclaimed, Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world !" St. Paul is still more particular: for he says, Christ' our passover is sacrificed for us :' and St. Peter declares, that we were redeemed • with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, who verily was foreordained, before the foundation of the world.' From a comparison of these passages we learn, not only that the two sacrifices resembled each other, but that the sacrifice of the paschal lamb was originally intended, to designate the sacrifice of Christ. The former sacrifice therefore has all the qualifications, which are necessary to constitute a type. And since the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was instituted by Christ himself in remembrance of his death and passion, the ceremony which was a type of the one may be considered as a type also of the other.' p. 4.
In these passages there is a looseness of writing which somewhat surprises us, and which it requires but little sagacity to detect. Was the paschal lamb sacrificed for the sins of the Jews. We have no recollection of any detail in the history of its appointment, to that effect; and till evidence of the statement be produced, it ought not to be assumed as correct. The Professor has limited the authority of interpreting types, to Christ and his Apostles : the authority of John the Baptist, is not the authority of an apostle, and is therefore excluded by the rule. But as we do not mean to insinuate that his authority was
not a Divine authority, or to deny that, though not strictly, it may properly be conceded as an authority within the Professor's ineaning, we shall let this pass. We cannot, however, suppress the objections we feel, in regard to his manner of proceeding in the treatment of the passages which he quotes from the New Testament. If the writers do not refer to the paschal lamb, he has assumed insufficient premises for his conclusion. If it be doubtful whether they refer to the paschal lamb, the same consequence will follow. Now, it appears to us, that the allusion in two of the quoted passages, John i. 29. 1 Peter i. 19. is not to the paschal lamb. The pascbal lamb was not an expiatory sacrifice; it is never so represented : it was eucharistical, not piacular. The allusion is, we apprehend, to the lamb of the daily sacrifice, which was a propitiatory sacrifice. Under the law,' says Jortin (Remarks, Vol. I, p. 127) ' a lamb was offered for a sin-offering, and thus an & atonement was made for transgressions. John the Baptist
calls Christ the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world ; and St. Peter tells Christians, that they are redeemed by the blood of Christ, as of a Lamb. Hence we infer and conclude that the lamb was a type of Christ; and upon considering it, we find that it has all that can be required to constitute a type; for it is in many respects a very just and lively representation of Christ.' In the quotation from the first epistle of Peter, the Margaret Professor has printed the words Lamb and pre-ordained, in Italics, as if the former was the antecedent to the latter, which is certainly not the case, the pre-ordination being predicated of Christ. If these passages in the New Testament refer, not to the paschal lamb, but to the lamb of the sin-offering, they contain no proof that the sacrifice of the paschal lamb" was originally intended • to designate the sacrifice of Christ,' though they may be of real service in support of the doctrine which asserts the death of Christ to be an expiatory sacrifice for sin; a doctrine which pervades the New Testament, and to which it attaches the greatest importance. The Margaret Professor should have first proved the relevancy of his quotations to his subject, before he adduced them in support of his assertions. Without this proof, his whole statement is invalidated. He is however unquestionably correct, in considering the words of the Apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. v. 7. as a direct reference to the paschal lamb; their meaning is determinate in this respect : but that the phrase
Christ our passover is sacrificed for us,' is a proof that the paschal lamb was designed in its original institution, as a prefiguration of the sacrifice of Christ, is, we apprehend, not placed beyond the limits of reasonable doubt. Is the existence of a pre-ordained connexion between the paschal lamb and the sacrifice of Christ, explicitly declared in the words, “ Christ our
passover is sacrificed for us ?”
The sacrament of Baptism, Dr. Marsh remarks, was prefigured by an event of great importance in the history of the Jews. This event is the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, as referred to by the Apostle, 1 Cor. x, 1.- Our “ fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, “ and were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
• In this passage it is evident, that St. Paul considered the being baptized unto Moses, as typical of being baptized unto Christ. The Jews, who admitted proselytes by baptism, appear to have generally considered the passage of their forefathers through the Red Sea, not as a mere insulated historical fact, but as something representative of admission to the divine favour by baptism. They said, that they were baptized in the desert, and admitted into covenant with God before the law was given. (See Whitby in loc.) p: 5.
Here again we must caution the readers of these Lectures, against yielding implicit assent to the statements they contain, and to the arguments they exhibit. We have frequently admired and applauded the keen and patient research of the Translator of Michaelis's Introduction, in examining the authorities cited in that work. In the present case we are surprised at the facility with which he puts down a partial and erroneous representation. Had he, instead of satisfying himself with the quotation in Whitby from Maimonides, been at the pains of consulting Maimonides himself, he would have found that this celebrated Jewish writer does not refer the being baptized in the desert to the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea. The Ancient Israelites, according to Maimonides, were admitted into covenant with God by circumcision, by baptism, and by sacrifice. The baptism he refers, not to the passage through the Red Sea, but to the purification prescribed in Éxod. xix, 10. • Baptismus • fuit in deserto ante datam legem, sicut dicitur, sanctificabis eos
hodie et cras, et lavent vestimenta sua.' Maimonides Isuri Bia. Ch. 13. Baptism was in the desert previously to the giving of the law, as it is written, sanctify them to-day and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes.
The Professor proceeds to shew, that the circumstances which attended the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, as a type of Christian baptism, accord with the circumstances which attend the latter as the antitype of the former. These circumstances however accord as accurately with the transaction at Mount Sinai, to which Maimonides refers baptism. As the Lecturer insists that mere resemblance is not sufficient to constitute one thing the type of another, but that the existence of a pre-ordained connexion must be satisfactorily established, before we can pronounce one thing to be the type of another,--the question to be