« PreviousContinue »
sense contended for by Bishop Marsh and those who hold similar views, as if there were no way for Scripture to bear with any effect upon the subject, except by naming every individual case. It is possible, surely, that in this, as well as in other things, Scripture may furnish us with certain views or principles, the special and, particular application of which is left very much to ourselves. Not only may we regard this as possible, but judging from analogy, we may even look upon it as highly probable—it being one of the leading peculiarities of New Testament scripture, that it rather unfolds great principles, than dwells on minute and isolated facts. It is presumption against, not in favour of, the system we now oppose, that it shuts up the typology of Scripture, in so far as connected with the characters and events of sacred history, within the narrow circle of a few scattered and apparently random examples. Whether we may succeed or not in satisfactorily establishing a better system, the attempt to do so cannot be charged with aiming at what is in itself improbable, and may at least be of service in drawing the attention of Christians to the unity of design which pervades the Old and the New Testament scriptures, the traces they exhibit of the same divine hand, the subservience of the one to the other, and the important ends which the things occurring under the earlier dispensations of God are still intended to fulfil in behalf of those son whom the ends of the world are come.'
This introductory chapter, and the whole indeed of the first part, were, as to their substance, drawn up several years ago, and have only now been cast into a more correct order and a more extended form. A new style of treating the symbols of the Old Testament has meanwhile been springing up in Germany, and may be said to be laying the foundation of a new school of typology. Various writers there had, from the beginning of the present century, applied themselves to the investigation of the symbolical character of the religions of antiquity. This line of investigation was at first prosecuted much as a subject of antiquarian and philosophical research, and Judaism was thought too unimportant, in this point of view, to have any particular notice taken of it. However, a better spirit was at the same time beginning to develope itself in regard to the religion of the Bible; and this, combined with the taste for symbolical inquiries, has ultimately led to the minute investigation of the symbolical character of the Mosaic institutions. It has been treated at great length by Baehr, in his Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus, (published in 1837-9,) and more briefly by Hengstenberg, in his Authentic des Pentateuchus, the second volume of which, the only one that bears on the subject, was published in 1839. Tholuck also, in his Commentary on the Hebrews, has followed in the same course, adopting the views of Hengstenberg in so far as they differ from those of Baehr. Even De Wette, whose earlier productions seem to have had it as one of their chief objects to depreciate Christianity by discovering in it as many marks as possible of Judaizing weakness and bigotry, appears in his declining
years to have caught somewhat of this better spirit, and to have turned his thoughts to the nobler object of elevating Judaism by descrying in its institutions and services the traces of Christianity. In a passage quoted by Baehr, he says: “Christianity sprung out of Judaism. Long before Christ appeared, the world was prepared, in which he was to appear; the entire Old Testament is a great prophecy, a great type of him who was to come, and has come. Who can deny, that the holy seers of the Old Testament saw in spirit the advent of Christ long before he came, and in prophetic anticipations, sometimes more, sometimes less clear, descried the new doctrine ? And the typological comparison of the New, with the Old Testament, was by no means a mere play of fancy. Christianity lay in Judaism as leaves and fruit do in the seed, although it certainly requires the divine sun to bring them forth.
Language such as this, and from such a quarter, undoubtedly indicates a great change of sentiment. An immense progress has been made in understanding the connexion between the writings of the two covenants; and instead of seeking to explain away the peculiarities of the gospel by resolving them into this and that Jewish prejudice, the more scriptural and rational method has been adopted of taking the gospel as the finished revelation, and by the help of its clearer light reading the peculiarities of Judaism. What has been done as yet, however, is rather the laying of a foundation for a new system of typology, than such a system itself. The language of De Wette is of a sufficiently wide and comprehensive character, but in point of fact, much that is admitted in the general by writers of his class, is practically denied when you come to the particular details. Baehr certainly is not chargeable with the same fault, but rather runs into the opposite one, of descending into too many particulars. But it is simply the symbolical nature of the Jewish ritual, which he investigates, and which properly forms the ground-work only of its typical character, although it is impossible to handle the one without making many allusions to the other. The one, however, may be handled in the most complete and satisfactory manner, while points of great interest and importance respecting the other are left untouched. And that is the case with the writers above noticed. They neither profess to open up in its entire compass the typical bearing of the Old Testament scriptures, nor have they in point of fact done so. Their investigations are valuable, so far as they go; but they have not yet gone, I conceive, to the full extent which Scripture itself warrants, nor have they touched upon various topics, to which the views they have expressed might have been legitimately and happily applied. It may not be fair, perhaps, to hold them as conclusively rejecting all the historical matters of ancient Scripture from the region of types, as the works in question did not lead them to pronounce any determinate judgment regarding it. But we certainly cannot refer to their authority for holding any thing to be typical out of the range of the Mosaic ritual, and it seems as if they scarcely contemplated the application of their principles to the historical transactions of the Old Testament. In this, we must not be understood as including either Olshausen or Hengstenberg.
The view adopted by Olshausen, who alone has endeavoured to found what may be called a new system of typology, we cannot give better than in the brief outline of Klausen: “We must distinguish between a false and a genuine allegorical exposition, which latter, though it alone, has the support of the highest authority, being frequently employed by the inspired writers of the New Testament. The fundamental error in the common allegorizing, from which all its arbitrariness has sprung, bidding defiance to every sound principle of exposition, must be sought in this, that a double sense has been attributed to Scripture, one of them consequently a sense entirely different from that which is indicated by the words. Accordingly, the characteristic of the genuine allegorical exposition must
be, its recognising no sense besides the literal one, differing from this in nature as from the historical reality of what is recorded, but only a deeper-lying sense (úrovota,) bound up with the literal meaning by an internal and essential connexion, given in and with this; which, therefore, must needs present itself whenever the subject is considered from the higher point of view, and which is capable of being ascertained by fixed rules. Hence, if the question be regarding the fundamental principles, according to which the connexion must be made out between the deeper apprehension and the immediate sense conveyed by the words, these have their foundation in the law.of general harmony, by which all individuals, in the natural as well as in the spiritual world, form one great organic system,-by which all phenomena, whether belonging to a higher or to a lower sphere, appear as impressions of the nature of ideas, so that the whole is represented in the individual, and the individual again in the whole. This mysterious relation comes most prominently out in the history of the Jewish people and their worship; but something analogous every where discovers itself, and in the manner in which the Old Testament is expounded in the New, are we furnished with the rules for all exposition of the word, of nature, and of history. For example, in the relation of Israel to Jehovah, we have the image of humanity at large and of every individual, standing in a religious relation to him; in the relation of Israel to other nations, the image of the opposition existing every where and in all times between godliness and its persecutors; Israel, the chosen people, the nation of priests, is further the type of Jesus as the anointed of the Lord, the eternal high priest; and finally, all holy combatants for the truth, all individuals wrestling for holiness, are again so many images of the people of Israel, and therefore also of the only-begotten Son of
In this mode of viewing the typical matter of ancient Scripture, there is a substantial exhibition of the truth, and it differs from that unfolded in the following pages more perhaps in form, than in substance. But presented as it is, under the form of a kind of allegorizing, proceeding on the principle of a higher and lower sense being contained in each part of Scripture, it certainly exhibits the truth under an unhappy form, and is open to some of the objections and abuses, of the ancient allegorizing. “The allegorizing,” as Klausen has remarked, “may perhaps be applied with greater moderation and better taste than formerly; but against the old principle, though revived as often as put down, viz. that every sense, which can be found in the words, has a right to be regarded as the sense of the words, the same exceptions will always be taken.” If the typology of Scripture cannot be rescued from the domain of allegorizings, it will be impossible to give it a solid and substantial footing. And it will be observed, that though in the following pages there may be often practically no substantial difference between the light we derive from Old Testament scripture, and that exhibited by Olshausen, yet we have no more to do with a nearer and deeper, than with a double, sense of Scripture.
* Klausen Hermeneutik, pp. 334, 335.
Klausen himself has no place in his hermeneutics for typical, as distinguished from allegorical interpretations. He seems to consider, as undoubtedly the most of the continental hermeneutical writers do, these as substantially the same in kind, and the latter only as the excess of the former. He admits the propriety, but only in a sort of apologetical and doctrinal way, not as having any thing to do with the work of exposition, properly so called, of making some application of Old Testament Scripture to the realities of the gospel, because of the relation which the one is asserted by inspired writers to hold to the other; although he conceives such relation scarcely to admit of being brought to the test
of historical truth, and the examples furnished of it in the New Testament to have arisen from necessity, rather than from choice, and commendable chiefly for their paucity, (pp. 95, 96.) Dr. Davidson, in his lately published work on Hermeneutics, differs so far from Klausen, that he distinguishes between allegorical and typical interpretations of Scripture, holding the one to be warranted, and the other not,—but, at the same time, draws no essential lines of distinction between them, nay, substantially confounds them together, because identifying them with “secondary or spiritual interpretations.” He consequently regards what is usually understood by allegorical interpretations, as not different in nature from typical ones, but only “an excessive use of the true spiritual interpretation contained in the New Testament,” (pp. 68, 69.)
The only other work of recent publication, to which we shall advert, is that of Mr. Alexander.* The portion devoted to the examination of the typology of ancient Scripture, is very limited, -much more limited, I conceive, than its important bearing on the connexion between the two economies properly entitles it to occupy in works purposely intended to trace that connexion. In
• The Connexion and Harmony of the Old and New Testament, by W. L, Alexander, M.A.
the short space allotted to the subject, there are some excellent remarks and just distinctions, expressing substantially the leading views of Baehr; but, we regret to say, these are applied to the utter exclusion of the historical types. The author admits nothing as typical which does not possess the character of a divine institution. He thus confines the types almost exclusively to the rites and services of the Old Testament worship; and not only cuts off all the inferred types of the Cocceian school, but also a large proportion of what used to be regarded as innate ones. Such transactions as those of the brazen serpent, and what befell to Jonah, and the events which happened to Israel in the wilderness, are held by him to have been referred to as mere comparisons, and the use made of them in the New Testament, is characterized as a simple allegorizing, or ascribing to them a fictitious meaning for the sake of illustration. Nothing in short is typical, but "symbolical institutes expressly appointed by God to prefigure to those, among whom they were set up, certain great transactions in connexion with that plan of redemption, which in the fulness of time was to be unfolded to mankind."
I shall not repeat what was said near the commencement of this chapter about allegorical or fictitious meanings, and in vindication of the apostle Paul from the use of them, in the sense now meant. But if in such passages, as those in Galatians and 1 Corinthians, the apostle puts fictitious meanings on certain transactions of Old Testament history, “for illustration merely, and not for the purpose of building any thing on them,” how, we ask, could he, with any fairness or propriety, have introduced the most important of these fictitious meanings, with a solemn appeal to the Galatians, calling upon them “to hear the law?” Could he have honestly used such an expression in reference to a mere play of fancy on a piece of ancient history, which might readily have been flung back upon him as a groundless conceit? On the contrary, it is a summons to hear the authoritative word of God; and if the word produced were nothing, after all, but a fictitious meaning put on a past transaction, I cannot see how the apostle can be acquitted of dealing deceitfully with the oracles of God.—Then, again, if all historical events be excluded, whether of a more common, or of a more extraordinary and peculiar nature, of course the deluge falls among the rest, while yet we are expressly told by Peter, that baptism is the antitype of it, or, in other words, that the deluge was the type of baptism.-A theory, which has to do violence to such plain testimonies of Scripture, cannot be based on a sound foundation; it plainly does not account for all the facts of the case; and if admitted, would infallibly lead to most unwarrantable liberties being taken with the inspired record.
A special exception is taken by Mr. Alexander against the case of Jonah, and which he seems to think conclusively settles a charge of absurdity on the supposition of its typical character. he says, “is an acted lesson,-a visible representation of invisible truths. To its utility, therefore, spectators are as indispensable