« PreviousContinue »
by divine authority as typical, can never be made so, by any authority less than that which guided the writers of the New Testament."
Prof. Stowe: “In regard to types and allegories, we know of none, excepting those which are explained as such in the Bible itself. All the rest are merely conjectural, and though often ingenious, are worse than idle, leading the mind away from the truth, perverting it by false principles of interpretation, and making it the mere sport of every idle fancy.”+
T. H. Horne: “Unless we have the authority of the sacred writers themselves for it, we cannot conclude, with certainty, that this or that person or thing, which is mentioned in the old Testament, is a type of Christ, on account of the resemblance which we may perceive between them.”I
Chevallier: “The connection of typical events with those which they foreshow, can be determined by authority only. For unless the Scripture has declared that the connection exists, we can never ascertain that
any resemblance, however accurate, is any thing more than a fanciful adaptation, and we may go on to multiply imaginary instances without end." Again: “The error of those who suffer their imagination to suppose the existence of types where they are not, should warn us that no action must be selected as typical of another, unless it be distinctly declared or plainly intimated in some part of Scripture to possess that character.”'
Christian Observer (London): “The truth of the whole matter (viz. of types) unquestionably lies in a short compass. The interpretations of this nature, which are adopted by Scripture itself, are infallible; but when they stand alone upon the authority of human invention and imagination, or, what is sometimes absurdly introduced as the analogy of faith, they are simply fallible, and often very simple indeed. No man of common sense will pretend, on such points, to any superior inspiration or judicial authority over another. Here the right of private judgment must take its most legitimate stand. The Scriptures,
cannot have been unknown to him who framed the Scriptures for man. Hence we may justly admire that ineffable wisdom which has given forth enough for the dullest and most sterile understanding of the wayfaring man, to guide him; and has superadded an abundance of most instructive and impressive analogies for every higher grade of intellect or imagination, not even refusing food to the most soaring and aerial of all minds, by the construction of narratives, occurrences and doctrines, which, with almost a miraculous closeness of application, may be made to fit into one another, and into the analogy of faith. It is, however, we repeat it, where these applications are warranted, and made to our hands, by the words of inspiration itself, that we deem them either positively certain or absolutely wise and safe."*
Types have been divided by different writers into various classes, as natural, moral, historical, legal, prophetical, etc. But for several of these distinctions there is no foundation whatever. It
well be doubted whether there are properly any types which have been called natural,—such as the sun, the moon, the creation, the earth, etc. Those rites which have been called moral types, are either mere emblems, or they properly belong to the class of historical types. What have been denominated prophetical types, are merely symbolical actions. All types are prophetical; and the utility of arranging them under the heads of legal, historical, etc., seems very questionable. Chevallier, however, has proposed a classification of a different description, which, so far as the prophetical character of types is concerned, may not be without its advantages. His division is into three classes, as follows: 1. “ Those which are supported by accomplished prophecy, delivered previously to the appearance of the antitype;" e. g., Moses, Deut. 18: 15; Joshua the High Priest, Zech. 3:8. 2. “Those supported by accomplished prophecy, delivered in the
of the antitype; e. g., the brazen serpent, Num. 21:5, 9 (comp. John 3: 14); the manna which the Israelites ate in the desert, John 6:32, 49; the paschal sacrifice, Cor. 5:7, 8 (comp. Luke 22:14 16); the miraculous preservation of Jonah in the fish, John 11:32, Matt. 12: 40. 3. “Those which in Scripture are expressly declared, or clearly assumed to be typical, after the pre
contained in the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices; also, Adam, Melchisedec, Joshua the son of Nun, David, Solomon, Elijah as a type of John the Baptist, etc.
It only remains that we suggest one or two rules for our guidance in the interpretation of types.
1. The analogy between the type and antitype should not be pressed beyond the points to which revelation has extended it. The principle on which this rule is founded is this : the relation between the type and antitype is, and must be, a general relation. Consequently, it was never designed to be extended to every particular circumstance. In every case, especially of typical persons, there are many things in the type which have and can have no place in the antitype. This arises from the fact, that the Son of God was prefigured by men subject to human passions and corrupted by sin. To regard the sinful acts of typical persons as prefigurative of Christ, seems to us little short of blasphemy. Some things, for the same reason, are peculiar to the antitype, and can have no corresponding circumstance or counterpart in the type. It is only in certain respects that human persons or things can shadow forth, and that very imperfectly, the Saviour of the world. In not a few instances, individuals adumbrated Christ, not in their private, but in their official character. Thus, Moses typified Christ as a prophet, lawgiver, leader of the children of Israel and head of the ancient dispensation. There may have been points of resemblance between the two in traits of private character. But as the New Testament writers have not noticed these, when speaking of the two in the way of comparison, we may presume that this resemblance was merely accidental; at any rate, we cannot positively affirm, without the authority of Scripture, that the private character and acts of the one were designed to prefigure the character and acts of the other. The Levitical priesthood and the ritual sacrifices of the Mosaic economy prefigured Christ our great High Priest, and the sacrifice of himself which he offered for sin on Calvary. Yet, there were many things in that priesthood which do not correspond to the antitype. The High Priest was to offer sacrifices for his own sins (Heb. 5:3);a circumstance not applicable to Christ (Heb. 7: 27). The Aaronic priesthood, moreover, was dvogado's, weak and unprofitable,-attributes which certainly did not belong to the Redeemer. Some persons are declared to be types only in respect to a single circumstance of their lives. Thus Isaac was a type
of Christ only as regards his intended sacrifice on Mount Moriah. Jonah was a type of Christ only in reference to his remaining three days unharmed in the belly of the fish. Now, as we are not justified in pronouncing, without scriptural authority, one person or thing to be typical of another, simply on the ground of resemblance between them; so, on the same principle, we are not warranted in extending the comparison to every particular in the private history of a really typical person, merely on the ground that we can discover a resemblance. We cannot be sure, without adequate authority for it, that the correspondence in every particular was preordained and not casual. Yet, nothing is more common than the extension of the comparison in such cases to every minute particular. There is no way of avoiding this error but by strictly confining our expositions of types to those express points in which the Scripture itself authorizes us to consider them as typical, or which immediately flow from the nature of the particular relation or character, which we are taught to regard as constituting the analogy between the type and its antitype.*
2. No doctrine should be taught as necessary to salvation which is founded solely on typical analogy. The great and fundamental truths, of the word of God, are taught in plain and unequivocal language, and not left to be deduced from obscure and figurative passages. The typical manifestations of the divine counsels will be found in perfect harmony with these truths. The former, therefore, may be profitab)y adduced in confirmation and illustration of the latter Our belief in the doctrine of the atonement, for instance, may be greatly strengthened by contemplating the fact that it was not only revealed to the fathers of our race by the clear intimations of verbal prophecy, but prefigured in the numerous sacrifices which were offered from the time of Adam to the death of Christ. But it is highly improbable that God would conceal, under the veil of types and shadows, truths which are essential to our salvation, and nowhere disclosed in plain and literal terms. No person consequently can be bound to receive, as a necessary article of faith, any doctrine which has no evidence in its support, except what is drawn from the types and shadows of the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations.
* See Coneybeare's Bampton Lectures, p. 305. Knapp's Theol. Vol. II. p. 163.
TOLERATION OF OPINION.
By D. Fosdick, Jr., Boston, Mass.
WERE one to reason a priori, toleration of opinion might seem too obvious a dictate of expediency-to say nothing of justice not to be early adopted and sedulously maintained. However overt acts of opposition to the will of governments or of individuals might be treated, we should hardly surmise that a mere difference of sentiment could be allowed to occasion animosity and cruelty-much less the infliction of death itself. But what a picture of intolerance is the page of history! In those who have not successfully cultivated the meekness which Christ enjoins—by no means the easiest lesson of his gospel—a mere difference of views on points of subordinate importance, is apt, even now, to awaken a harshness of feeling, which, fanned by the influences of other times, would have kindled the fiercest flames of persecution. It is true the expression of sentiments differing from those which are dominant, may be considered in some sense, an overt act of opposition to the powers that be. But most cases of persecution for opinion's sake, have arisen from the possession, rather than the expression of obnoxious views from contumacy and presumption of daring to rebel against prescribed forms of thought.
Of the religious history of most pagan nations we know but little-far less, even, than of their civil history. From what we do know, however, it is evident that all have been more or less harassed by religious despotism at home, while they have done what they could, even by brute force, to extend the wor-ship of their gods and the use of their sacred rites. Of ancient nations, the Romans were probably the most tolerant in matters of religion. But they never proceeded further than to allow the worship of new gods, requiring at the same time reverential homage to the old. The Egyptian might do homage to his Serapis and Isis, if he would pay the deference which was considered as due to their gods and goddesses. The Christian, even, might have worshipped Jehovah, if he would have offered